![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found some book reviews in U.S. newspapers for Tribal Leadership and added them to the article, so I think notability is now indicated. -- Eastmain ( talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Although the image here is larger and has a 4:3 instead of 3:4 orientation, it is essentially the same image and the website states the same author, so it's fine. Thanks for fixing the problem. MECU≈ talk 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I nominated this for deletion at exactly the same moment that you did. What are the odds? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not know of any sources, in fact I tagged it. I do not truly know if Suzanne and Jim are notable per Wiki:musician guidelines; it was nominated to be speedy deleted, but speedy was rejected due to the "assertion of notability"... I'm searching for sources now. The articles' creator hasn't responded... not a good sign usiually. Frog47 ( talk) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your nomination for deletion is showing up as a red link on the David Sustak page. Corvus cornix talk 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, Thanks & Regards. -- Bhadani ( talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added some references, both print and online, to the AfD for the Rock and Ice climbing club in an attempt to demonstrate its notability -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and Ice climbing club. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm no foul, okay? Innocent mistake, and I've toned down the harsh language in the AFD discussion page from an administrative standpoint, as it is divisive and unproductive. I like to emphasize content, not contributor. (In other words, you're forgiven. ;-) ) Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As the internet was beginning its real growth as a commercial application, many sites opened up to sell stuff. Crutchfield was the first company to start up its own site, as opposed to hiring a firm to do it for them, or just offering its line to another vendor to sell. Kind of like the difference between buying Taco Bell products in a grocery store and going to one of their restaurants. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in any information related to high asia mountaineering, just ask Eberhard Jurgalski the leading chronicler and statistician of world mountaineering. There is no need to correct his data. Pepto65 ( talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you find it helpful to ask Viewfinder to get a sense, which kind of source Jurgalski is. Pepto65 ( talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Anon editors are not de facto vandals. Also, there was tons of legitimate content lost; next time try reverting to a a better version. It doesn't need to be perfect; don't lose all that useful and referenced content because it may have issues. I've restored a good version and tagged it for the issues I saw. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Found this. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The trip hop page needs external links. Those websites are needed. What the hell is wrong with you? Fclass ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you take this to AfD if you think it should be merged? AfD is for deletion only, not for merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it considered vandalism to report the truth? Is it because you don't want it to be true? You reversed a set of WELL documented edits to Freers' profile? Do you have an self-interest in smashing his reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.61.67 ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that I took so long to respond. I have an important out of country trip tomorrow and you know how it is. O.K. I did fix the link. Stan Griffin is a writer and contributor to Deaf Friends International an online magazine for the worldwide Deaf Community. Stan Griffin is the author of various books: [1]. Take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. -- jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop with A) baseless accusations, B) personal attacks, and C) vendetta-based editing. Though you seem to gain personal satisfaction from the frustration they cause, all three are utterly unproductive, and have no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. — jacobolus (t) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Talk:Comet (programming): Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have removed a personal attack from the talk page, please be
civil and don't drive contributors away. -
83.254.208.192 (
talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Which people are we talking about? Lord Balin ( talk) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
About list of software, please see Talk:Online_chat, thanks. - 213.115.160.72 ( talk) 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed your inline edit [2] to IP 63.64.108.5's comment. I think it is best to refute his claim below, and not to modify his text. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi ( talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You shoud consider more ethical behaviour. Your motivations might be from racism to political. Whatever they are, you are a bad guy. Why did you choose Damiens as an Icon? This historical figure is not a good example. You should choose somebody less violent than an anarchist murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. Michellecrisp ( talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I always love deletionists. Not. Thanks for getting a whole bunch of images deleted where free images are next to impossible. Timeshift ( talk) 06:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeep! Thank you so much for letting me know about the weird imposter situation over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. That's all kinds of scary. I'm going to look into what can be done. Thank you again for letting me know! Vickser ( talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC) dear Vickser. In French History Damiens is a very controversial figure. He supposededly murdered a king because he cared about a religious community. Actually many historians think his motivation was actually to fight this community by putting the blame on it. think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yep you're quite right with your rv. on my removal of the unref tag. It wasn't an WP:RS in the slightest. It's a commercial site for middle eastern skiing! Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks! It's a bit slow going, as most of the sources I can find are in French, but I'm trying to go through it slowly with my limited knowledge of French, a lot of help from Google Translate, and whatever corroborating sources I can find. :) Cheers. ← George [ talk 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my attitude towards you in our recent disagreement was a little flamey. In all truth, this was entirely intentional, and I regret taking such a poor attitude towards you. From all I can tell, you're a good editor with your heart in the right place, even though I disagree with you on when, exactly, one should ignore rules. I certainly should have known better than to read the wrong things (bad intentions and a desire to slap people around with rules to get one's way) into your actions, and even if you weren't acting with the best of intentions, that still wouldn't give me a license to act like a total dick towards you. I'm glad, however, that we resolved things in a way which we're all (as far as I can tell) happy with, something that would never have happened if you hadn't stirred the pot as you did. Please don't hold my occasional assholery against me, mmkay?
tl;dr sorry for being a dickhead, and here's a picture of a pretty bird. Lewis Collard! ( lol, internet) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Your use if twinkle is far from ideal, labelling editors who are making good faith edits (even if misguided) as vandals. Here is a selection of those edits; [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Continuing to use twinkle to label these edits as vandalism, and to help you edit war will lead to removal of your twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please justify your repeated deletions of the link to the site Chris Barnes...Beyond Tanner, which is a biography of the actor that this article is about.
Thank you. Cbsite ( talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE KEEP YOUR GARBAGE OFF MY TALK PAGE. Cbsite ( talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't edit on the English Wikipedia if English isn't your primary language. You're just embarassing yourself:
Cbsite ( talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
you got a friend...
Lewis Collard! (
lol,
internet) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a message on my talk page warning about disparaging messages - so don't post there, ok? What I did was completely fine, and I will do it again if you continue with the nonsense you are carrying on with. You are making nominations in violation of WP:POINT to bully Australian editors and I will report you if you keep doing so. You do not understand Australia and you should stop making up spurious reasons for deleting photos when they are entitled to be there. There is not a blanket ban on non-free images, so stop trying to introduce one via the back door through pushing the boundaries of policy creep via the back door. If you want a blanket ban then od it through the proper channels. JRG ( talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a complaint about my rather unpleasant experience of you several weeks ago, if you'd like to chime in. Cbsite ( talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what language you excel in, but it obviously isn't English. PLEASE STOP corrupting the Joanna Newsom page.
Cheers,
Snoop God (
talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
if you knew anything about Joanna Newsom and could be bothered looking at the page (for references) you wouldn't be waisting my time. Vandalise the page again and I will report it! Snoop God ( talk)
You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wil you please stop putting every fair use image up for deletion. It in no way helps wikipedia and I will be forced to report you if you keep putting images with adeqaute rationales up for deletion. Images of deceased people when a free image is impossible to obtain it is within wikipedian policy and copywright law to use the images if a replaceable image is not available. AN image used to identify the subject is encyclopedia and therefore rmeoval is damaging. Such images providing they have a fair use rationale and are irreplaceable are generally acceptable on wikipedia. Ask any administrator. The Bald One White cat 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Those images you have nominated are not adequate for deletion unless a free image becomes available. If you study WP:FAIRUSE you will see that this is acceptable.Rule 1 is: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
I've been on here a long term and done a great deal of work for wikipedia and know what is generally acceptable for fair use. If we had free images of these people who are no longer living we would be using them instead, but as we don't and it won't be possible to obtain a new one we can legitamtely use them. The Bald One White cat 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think the image policy is but Yone Minagawa has an adequate rationale and a caption within the article which clearly helps the reader encyclopedically. If you remain fixated by your idea of what is not acceptable you are going to make yourself very unpopular on here fast and in doing so have to learn the hard way The Bald One White cat 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My time on wikipedia does not revolve around images. I see that is appears to be a Allied Press image. ALl I can suggest is that we contact Allied Press and ask them what their policy is with wikipedia using their images. What do you suggest we do then? The Bald One White cat 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Damien - can you stop tagging images for deletion just for the mo? Your interpretation of the NFCC is essentially under dispute, and flooding the IfD page with deletion requests that all amount to the same thing is not getting us anywhere. Can you hold off until some kind of consensus is reached, then you can tag merrily away knowing what the prevailing opinion is? Cheers Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your desire for an accurate article about me. I share that desire. To that end, stop removing valid citations. There is plenty of evidence that I have been making a living from free software for many many years. Look, for example, on the Free Software Business mailing list. If I was a fraud, surely someone would have called me out. You have no reason to call me a liar; no evidence for it whatsoever; and there's plenty of evidence (if only you would stop vandalizing my page) that I am not lying. RussNelson ( talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Damiens.rf. Though I'm still unclear on why you could be thought to have a COI on this article, take a look at WP:COIN#Russ Nelson. You are welcome to add your own opinion there.
Maybe we should treat online bios of the subject (hosted at an organization he's part of) as being similar to his own blog, i.e. a self-published testimony? This may be accepted as an external link on the person's own article, though it could not be used as a reference for matters of fact, per WP:SPS. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant to put this comment at the end of this thread -- only to find you archive comments after just two days.
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested:
Although, it might be wiser to take it a bit more slowly. Not to upset too many people all at the same time, you know.
I agree, but I would go much farther.
Some of your nominations hold merit. But, in my opinion, it would be far, far better for the wikipedia if you changed how you nominated articles:
It seems to me that if you were to devote the same amount of effort to deletion nominations, but make them without violating the wikipedia's civility policies, you would have to cut back the volume of your nominations. There is nothing wrong with this. Sure, your time is valuable. But the time of good-faith uploaders is just as important as yours.
You absolutely can not ask good faith uploaders to feel slighted when your nominations represent less than a full effort to be clear, or civil, so that your nomination time is spent more efficiently.
Assuming that a nomination you make is in fact based on policy, but you do not explain it sufficiently well that a good faith uploader can understand it, you are not just doing a disservice to that good-faith uploader -- you are doing a disservice to the entire project. When you are unwilling, or unable, to explain to a good-faith uploader why the image they uploaded should be deleted you will not only piss them off, but you leave them in the position where they still don't know what they did wrong. So, unless they leave the project in disgust, they are going to continue to upload other images, in good faith, which may fail to comply with policy in the same way as the image you just nominated. How the heck are they supposed to know what they did wrong when you make rude, opaque, obfuscated explanations?
This is not just a waste of their time -- it is a waste of everyone's time. And it unnecessarily erodes the general level of civility on the project.
If you think an image should be deleted -- but you don't think you are capable of offering a civil, meaningful explanation why that image should be deleted that someone who is not an insider on the deletion fora could understand -- let someone else nominate it for deletion. If you think it is important ask someone who you think can explain why the image should be deleted for help.
Please consider -- isn't it possible that if you can't offer a simple explanation as to why an image should be deleted -- that you might be mistaken, and that image does not, in fact, merit deletion, after all?
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S.
You might consider telling the archive robot to allow comments to be left on your page for more than two days. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but only keeping comments around for two days might be interpreted as a reckless disregard for the value of other's feedback. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Life really is too short to spend all your time trying to defend something which nobody pays you for or obliges you to do. A great deal of time is wasted on wikipedia by pointless discussion and threats of deletions. It does nothing to enchance the quality and reputation of wikipedia, and I really have little time to have to keep defending deletions and trying to state my case. What I will never understand is how you seem to get personal satisfaction from deleting content which can be the only explanation as to why you are so dedicated to solely thinking about this area of the project.
Believe it or not, I try to avoid confict or ANI disreputes as much as possible and get on with building the encylopedia. I only react or file a complaint if I believe content on wikipedia which people have worked hard for on here is under threat. I try to focus solely on content but if something is under threat of affecting this and I see a deliberately deletionist course of action then I come into conflict with editors such as yourself when I would rather no have to. The Bald One White cat 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:TROLL. The Bald One White cat 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ Non-free fair use in}}
I can't say I know much about the image policies, but this certainly is acceptable. --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The licensing template has been approved by the administration of wikipedia. It is generally accepted in non free rationale criteria not only on here but under United States law under Fair use. Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also non existant?? If the claim of fair use was invalid I seriously doubt anybody here would have dreamed of creating a template that implies use of the image is acceptable. By rebuking my images you are basically saying that the creator of this template and indeed the fair use law is redundant. If wikipedia did not accept such images why on earth would they create a licensing tag with a clear copywright mark on it???
![]() | This work is
copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at
Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or
Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at
Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
qualifies as
fair use under
United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be
copyright infringement. See
Wikipedia:Non-free content and
Wikipedia:Copyrights. | ||
|
If you are implying that this licensing is invalid, then automatically all non free content should be removed from wikipedia as somebody somewhere had to pay for an image originally. The Bald One White cat 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
PS your behavior has been raised on User:Keeper76's talk page. This is fast becoming the new ANI. :) --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I;ve found a free image. Try reverting me now or finding that that is copywrighted. The Bald One White cat 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Both images have now been deleted. Happy? The Bald One White cat 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you realise how many flickr agreements I have made and how much work I have done finding free image content to add to articles. You seem to think I am just this copywright glutton who only tries to upload non free images but I have actually worked as hard as any editor on here in trying to do so. The Bald One White cat 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing is for sure we need to come to a solid conclusion legally about what qualifies for fair use as many of our existing images are being used in the same way that the image your removed of Soe Win was. If you think that the current policy is redundant then I would seriously suggest you go about it in a formal discussion rather than picking on isolated images uploaded by myself. The Bald One White cat 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Because even if I had stated that Corbis was the owner of the image and added every detail imaginable you would have still claimed that we couldn't use the image because of payment issues. This applies to many of the images we have on here. The Bald One White cat 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You can respond on your talk page its fine rather than copying it to mine. As I said even if I had explained about Corbis and why it qualifies for use here without payment, there is no rationale under the sun you would have found acceptable for the claim of that image. The same goes for other images where you seme to imply that no rationale is valid evne if it shows the deepermost respect to the copywright holder and the content in the image is irreplaceable. I am fully aware you can't wave a magic wand but given the criteria layed down in the copywright fair use requirements and fair use law there must be a way in which some rationale could claim for such an image. The Bald One White cat 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I file a "deleted image" appeal? (I don't see a button anywhere on the page for the deleted image for it!) If you can help (me find where to file, not to appeal) -- thanks! Justmeherenow ( ) 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Damien. ANy idea how we would go about finding permisssion to use the image of the baby with two heads seen here. The image is used on all the news sites but has obviously been sold to these people so I haven't uploaded it. However do you think its possible to find out given that we will never get another alternative to identify it. The Bald One White cat 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Mmm I don't know it not the same as a photo. Ah well it doesn't matter for now there is an external link to it and the image is all over the web. The thing is with many images we can see them within seconds by looking eleswhere but it is nice to have an image with the article (copywright permitting) of course. That image is owned by one agnecy though as I have checked and I bet they're making a mint out of it. In this circumstance I can see how it would be difficult to try to use the image without paying. The Bald One White cat 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Before simply reverting my removal of your bad faith IFD you might have looked to see that I had changed the license template and added a non-free use rationale. I have since also uploaded a new image (that does not have press-kit NFCC#6 issues) and under the website's copyright has permission to be displayed on the web for non-commercial purposes (like display in Wikipedia). I'll write the same thing at the IFD. You saw my edit history - but as usual you are acting like a bully to conveniently ignore it for your own purposes. Are you ever going to learn? JRG ( talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering if you could look into seeing what the expiry date is on danish copyright images? The Bald One White cat 22:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is Reid?(in case you didn't read the references section) All of my statements in that section of the article are drawn from Reid's book on Canadian painting. I could reference them from him, but then the single source issue is still present. I will try to find more references. Personally, I think that such a great amount of maintenance tags on such a small section of the article is excessive. Lithoderm ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, the ISBN is already there: John Goodwin Lyman#References. Lithoderm ( talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you're reverting edits by Tarheelz - which I was also forced to do last night - so if you believe the term "supermodel" is non-NPOV, there is a debate going on right now you might be interested in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion Mbinebri ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to use OTRS and I *did* get permission to use that portrait - i don't know why your singling out me. Paul Austin ( talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The link you continually cite on non-free content is in relation to images, video clips, etc - not cited verbal statements (please re-read it and familiarize yourself with wiki policy, which you seem to be unclear about). You have offered no justifiable reasoning for your drive-by hasty deletions of sourced, notable, and properly weighted commentary, and I will continue to revert until you do so or discuss your removal and achieve consensus. Under your current incorrect rationale, no quote could ever be used. thank you. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there! I hope you'll like the new one :-) Emilfaro ( talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Taking your irrational anti-quote crusade, to every quote I have ever added on Wikipedia is a means of harassment ... in response to current disagreements. Nearly all of these quotes have NEVER been a problem for any other editor, and you have not justified your (no quote) policy. In addition, you never discuss your drive-by removals, as you hastily go page to page deleting every quote you find that I have ever added. If you continue this behavior I will report you to wiki administration & I will continue to revert your behavior for as many days as it takes, until you achieve some consensus or show me the specific policy BANNING all use of quotes. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
discuss your rationale first, before templating articles (which should be a last resort). Thank you. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use
"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
Redthoreau ( talk)RT 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that it is important to have an image on the page, what is more important is having an appropriate image on the page. This is, after all, an article in an encyclopedia and thus the images on the page, especially at a focal point such as an infobox, should be somewhat respectful and representative. A simple portrait-style image (such as the one that was removed) is more appropriate than an image of the subject carrying a tray of drinks. Was the subject a waiter? Or a bartender? No, he was the Hon. Premier of South Australia. Please refrain from re-adding that image until a suitable replacement can be found. ABVS1936 ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you think through your actions a little more.
The image that you have now twice tagged is very clearly from the era noted in image notes (i.e. approximately 1910), forty-odd years clear of the limit on public domain images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to go find the source for this image rather than deleting it for jollies when you and I both know that it is definitely public domain?
This is on the same day that I've seen you a) try to delete an image of a dead person by claiming that he was in fact, alive, and b) claim that one of the most significant feminist book publishers in history was a self-published vanity press. Perhaps you should be a little more careful with your editing, because that's three times in the one day where your carelessness has negatively impacted upon the encyclopedia. Rebecca ( talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that in future you might want to read more closely before making accusations of that nature - since you're so familiar with Wikipedia policies, you might want to take heed of WP:BLP, which is one of our most important.
Seal Press is a significant imprint of a major publishing company. Their books are in I dare say most large bookstores in the Western world, and several are staples of university courses around the world (in fact, they put out one of the most cited women's studies texts ever written). I don't know where the hell you got the idea that they were a vanity press, but once again, you really need to think things through before you come out with a claim like that in a Wikipedia article.
As for the image, you know from the state of the image that it was made well before 1955, which it would have to be after to be copyrighted. You have two courses of action here - a) go look for the source to confirm the obvious, and b) delete a perfectly good and perfectly legal image. I'm damned if I know why you're choosing the latter course, but it certainly ain't helping the project. Rebecca ( talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering your history with the article before, it might well be better for you to pick an article to work on that you don't have quite such an erratic history with - especially since the article is a BLP, and that you have had ongoing negative engagement with its subject. Rebecca ( talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
According to the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, it was User:Rebecca that violated 3RR. I was doing valid changes to the article (like adding and formating references and external links), I tried to collaborate with her, only to receive reverts of my edits.
Decline reason:
This block was discussed at WP:ANI#Intervention welcomed, and consensus appears to be that you were disruptive. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, MaxSem. But I had already been blocked (for 24hs) for the reasons discussed on that ANI thread. This time, I wasn't blocked "for being disruptive", but "for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti", and that's what I'm disputing here. To the the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, I add that Rebecca was reverting valid edits I was doing to Jessica Valenti, like adding and formating sources and formating external links. In her reverts, valid information was lost, like that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post" and the use of the template cite-web on the Colbert Report reference. Please, carefully review the situation. Thanks.
Decline reason:
It is clear that you were edit-warring on this page. Your last block for edit-warring ended just hours before you started again: that you should so quickly recommence edit-warring so quickly is disturbing. I therefore fully endorse Smashville's escalation of the block to a week and strongly urge you not to edit war when the block expires. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ok, I fail to see how that was edit warring. I tied to communicate with Rebecca, but she preferred to keep reverting my valid edits. Now, due to Rebecca's edits, the Jessica Valenti article has a broken reference (number 4), the references number 5 is no longer formated with {{ cite web}}, it no longer mentions that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post", the interviews she gave about her book are hidden in the external links section (even without link-descriptions) instead of incorporated in the article as references, not to mention the reference Rebecca broke and had to be repaired by the bot AnomieBOT.
Nevermind, she's the former member of arbcom and I'm the recently blocked drama queen. -- Damiens.rf 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) Smashville, I will explain how each of these diffs occurred and why I believe they can't be sincerely interpreted as "Damiens is edit warring, violated 3RR" and why what other users are doing matters. It will be long, I and wish you could put as much dedication to read it as I've put to write.
The diff "one" is actually an undoing of an accidental article blanking by myself. If you use the diff function correctly and compare it to the version you called "your original version", you'll see that I was formating the external links with the {{ cite web}} template. I did had to undo Rebecca's previous revert, since she reverterd a series of 6 valid edits by me where I added some references, formated some others, added content and cleaned the external links. User:Rebecca undid all of that with the justification "(revert edits that made grammar worse" [8].
Rebecca then reverted (2nd time) my use of {{ cite web}} and all previous improvements using just the justification "Nyet. Removing changes that made article worse" [9] (Note that since her first revert I was trying to communicate with her at her talk page.)
In the diff "two", if you really compare it with "my original version", you will notice that I was not only undoing Rebecca's 2nd revert, but also, incorporating external links as content and references to the article.
After that, I added more improvements, like trying a better format for the references section [10], trying to homogenize the use of italics through the article [11] and even trying to address what (I believe could be) Rebecca's concerns with my grammar [12].
Then User:Rebecca reverted it all again (3rd time), saying simply "Revert, again, edits making article worse than the original article" [13].
In the diff "three", I undo User:Rebecca's 3rd revert, believing that she was making some progress in our talk page conversations, were I was repeatedly asking her to help me to fix her "grammar" concerns, and explaining that things like adding new references and formating existing ones with {{ cite web}} could not be "making article worse than the original".
I went on with MOS improvements in the references [14] and adding more content to the "Essays" section [15]...
Just to see Rebecca not only reverting (4th time) everything again, but also completely removing the "Essays" section [16] that I had just started to work on to improve!!! This section also served as a reference to some claims in the article, and now the article is broken without it (see the reference #4 in the current (rebecca's) version of the article, that now mentions an non existing section).
She went on to remove one more paragraph from the article that she doubled a "clueless factoid" [17]
And note that before her 4th revert, I had already gently warned her about the risk of violating 3RR (on her talk page).
Your diff "four" is me, not only undoing Rebeca's 3RR-violating revert (and subsequent content removal), but also adding more content to the (now restored) "Essays" section.
I went on to add information about one place more where the article's subject worked as a freelance (what was supported my recently added content on the "Essays" section, to do some minor MOS homogenizations [18] and external-links cleanup [19]
User:Rebecca reverted (5th rtime!) all of this (and everything prior) explaining "these edits either a) don't make sense, or b) are totally unnecessary. knock it off'" [20].
In your diff "five", I'm not only undoing Rebeca's 5th revert, but adding content about the publication of a second book by the article's subject.
User:Rebecca reverted them for the 6th time, but she liked the sentence about the 2nd book, and left it on the article [21]. In her edit summary, She qualified all previous improvements as "cruft".
This edit indeed left the article with a broken reference (#6) and a reference mentioning a removed section (#4) ( see her version)
Not to mention that she lost the {{ cite web}} formatting I've added to reference #5.
At this point, I was unable to fix the article since I was already blocked for a week for "violating the 3RR rule". Hopefully, a bot fixed one of the problems with the references.
So, do you still stand that it doesn't matters what Rebecca did? Do you feel more comfortable in letting my 3RR report to be archived with the result "Submitter already blocked?"
Your's truly, -- Damiens.rf 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, Il faut arreter. Toute cette histoire te rend malade. Ici c'est comme une secte, tu dois etre gentil sinon on te casse. Tu as bien travaille, tu as ete gentil, mais tu t es enerve. C'est trop tot pour te prendre pour un maitre de l'univers avec toute puissance sur les edits des autres. Il faut gagner ce privilege. iL FAUT DEVENIR ADMIN. Et pour devenir admin, il faut lecher le cul des autres admin, avant de pouvoir niquer les autres, les newbies. Il faut pas les mordre (dont bite newbies), il faut leur dire de te faire une pipe sans te mordre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparsa? ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You have TWICE reverted my edit calling Fidel Castro 'a strongman'. In reality, in this case 'strongman' is a gross understatement. NPOV rules tend to protect people from unjust attacks. Fine. Trouble is, they also protect bastards from being called bastards. It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that there will always be a plentiful supply of self-appointed vigilantes, good-intentioned or not, who will immediately and zealously react against and revert an edit of, say, Fidel Castro's article calling him what he really is, a dictator. Also sadly, most of such vigilantes often are completely ignorant of the applicable historical facts, so we have (along the same example) an Norwegian kid, ignorant of the 20th-Century history of the Americas, reverting edits about Fidel Castro made by a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the Paredón, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good; the Norwegian youngster administering the final insult: he delivers a sermon on WP:NPOV policy, because the Cuban editor didn't supply proper "references" or "citations" about facts the whole world is well aware of. It's nauseating. Perhaps if Wikipedia was based in a country less dominated (or better, harassed) by lawyers than the USA, then saying THE TRUTH would be more important than saying just polite, tactful, NPOV-correct, mild, harmless, non-offensive, and hypocritical statements about people, or than "adequately sourcing" said truth. So, Mr. Vigilante, Fidel Castro is not only 'a strongman' (did you look at the article or not?), he is a criminal, a murderer, a ruthless Dictator, a liar, a thief, and a rotten bastard. That's the truth, not "THRUTH" as you wrote. So quit protecting the article on Cuba: you simple lack que qualifications for the task. You need a lot of further study and to do a lot of research. Perhaps a 2-year stay in Cuba itself would be best. You'd learn a lot, and be surprised a lot. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You've recently come off a week long block, and are being incautious. [23] was unhelpful and looks like stalking / trolling. Not having fully worked out what is going on, I have done nothing. But the advice you received above in french (shorn of the naughty words) is plausible William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, hello--
My name is Mike Smith, and I am currently at work on a book--a book about Wikipedia--about how Wikipedia has affected our culture, and about the wide range of people who help to make Wikipedia the social force that it is. (It will also be accompanied by an hour-long documentary.) I am attempting to contact a number of notable Wikipedia users, yourself included, in pursuit of information about the inner Wikipedia community and its members.
If you are at all interested in being interviewed for my book, drop me an e-mail at mike@mystrangenewmexico.com, with a mailing address so I can send you one of my publisher's press kits for this project. It'll give you a good overview of what sorts of questions I'll be asking, and will even includes a promotional T-shirt.
If you're not interested, that's fine as well; it's my loss. Well, it would be yours too, since you won't get to represent yourself in the book--while some of those who know you from Wikipedia will.
I hope to hear from you soon,
Sincerely,
Mike Smith Author, WIK-ED: HOW WIKIPEDIA CONQUERED, REVOLUTIONIZED, AND REDEFINED THE WORLD (Spring 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarcticsuburbs ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am fully entitled to remove disruptive comments. You are acting completely inappropriately even after you have been warned multiple times and blocked several times. Desist or you will be blocked. Ok? JRG ( talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that removing other people's comments is generally disruptive, but does it really matter what names people are being called on some forum outside of Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the deletion discussion? Why isn't the templated notice at the top of the page enough? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have any intrest in or knowledge of Anrican films, go to this wikiproject [24] and join! If you don't, then spread this around. The African Films Task force needs you, so follow the link, or spread this post, so people can join the African Films Task Force.
Please help, -- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
One more revert and you are in violation of the 3rr, which you have a long history of violating. I did not delete your comments I moved them to a different place. You did however revert them with out my comments. This subject is open for discussion in the Discussion page, please do so there rather than through reverts. -- Brendan White ( talk) 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien, do NOT vandalize that article again. I asked for comments, not outright blanking. Secondly, your rationale for blanking it is totally false. Everything is Verified "WP:V", all sources are reliable "WP:RS", any claim made in there is followed by a reference. Please use the talk page to state why you're making changes on the page. Should you blank that article again, be aware that I will begin reporting you for vandalism. Use the talk page, make your case, don't just blank again. 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Amanda Milan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Amanda Milan. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien, you have a user page consisting of a copyrighted picture (your source is Encyclopedia Britanica). You can't have a copyrighted picture on your user page, therefore it was removed. If you disagree, please file a WP:RFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon ( talk • contribs)
Licensing states its from Encyclopedia Britanica - Encyclopedia Britanica is copyrighted, as is everything in it. It's copyrighted. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain". If you have an issue with the image, then you should be the one to take it to WP:FUR instead of potentially starting an edit war on a userpage over an image the user did not upload. If the tag/WMF is wrong, then take it up in the appropriate channels.-- Smashville talk 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your points, and my response:
It's a valid page found on Google. It's now cached [29], Article # 1908 (at this time - but that may change)
Read the reference that goes along with it. It doesn't list the town name, it lists his birth place in that exact verbiage. Therefore I have to list it that way.
Are you reading the references with this, it's REFERENCED!!!
... REFERENCED info
AGAIN, referenced....read the references next time
Your POV
It's reliable
Referenced in just that way
His exact quote - read the references, please
Again, referenced quote
See above
WP:SOFIXIT
READ THE REFERENCES - it IS referenced
Your POV
Nope
Nope -- per referenced sources
Referenced....you DO see that little number next to that sentance, dont' you ;)
See above
No - per references
REFERENCED
Nope - his exact quote
Nope - per the references
Nope - per sources
Read the references with that
ARE YOU READING THE REFERENCES ON THIS - THEY'RE THERE!!!!!!
PER SOURCES
Open up an RFC on it, if that's the consensus, that by all means, refactor them. (By the way, I claim IAR on that, you get a better idea of what he's like by those quotes, and he DID retire, so what do you expect his co-workers would say ? :)
Nope - again, per sources
Per References
Your POV
Nope - again -- READ the references, it's actually direct quote
Lay off the crack, it's sourced :) (Yes, I'm being funny)
Again, it's sourced, just look
....do you see the little number at the end of the sentance....it called a reference, click on it and you can see my source.... :)
See above
RFC it, if consensus agrees, no problem
Read the comment in the source -- IAR. It improves the article. I realize this can be challenged, and if a consesus is reached that this shouldn't be here, I won't war to keep it in.
See the numbers at the bottom....... :)
-- Damiens.rf 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien.rf you're being difficult. You've been blocked before, please stop before you get another block. 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you refrain from further mischaracterisation of my writing: far from being a JUSTAPOLICY, I specifically gave contexts to my writing, assuming that the closing administrator and anyone else who's familiar with the deletion process would recognise which parts of the fair use criteria my answers addressed. I don't demand that you agree with me, but (here's the JUSTAPOLICY for you :-) I believe that WP:CIV requires that you WP:AGF. Nyttend ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe in probability. On the off chance it becomes popular and dozens of comments come to "defend" it, at least one of them is bound to be not-clueless. Although that would be a virtual pain in the ass to sort through... so since you asked I won't do it again.
Cheers.
-- Aeon17x ( talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As per my edit summary, the image is of a prominent Australian Politician wearing a headset for broadcast, NOT a headset for telephone or computer. The article is not about the former type of headset, not the latter - it doesn't matter how "nice" the image is, it is not an appropriate representation of the subject of the article. It is also not about the politician in question. Please try to keep the images you add to articles in-context, as I have asked you before. ABVS1936 ( talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove a provided source for an image. That you'd remove it when provided after nominating it for deletion smells of bad faith, and is not a good look. Rebecca ( talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
we both seem to be getting constantly reverted on the above article, for the record I do agree with your deletion of some of the more memorial style websites that are linked there.
I don't want to see anyone blocked over this, any suggestions on how to solve this little drama?
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Microphone Gaffe? Silly newbie, remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about containing all the important information of the world and if you think the examples cited in that article aren't important then you are very much mistaken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.213.150 ( talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Amanda_Milan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo
As someone involved, it seems like a good idea to tell you that at last we have some discussion on the talk pages of these article, and some changes (which you may or may not agree with)
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you recently proposed a bunch of "fair use" images for deletion. Unfortunately, when you added the image-deletion template to articles where the image was used, the deletion template hides the image caption. Among other things, this makes it harder to evaluate the "fair use" claims for the images. The deletion template should be inserted in the caption field; if you put a "|" in front of it, the deletion template hides the caption. I've fixed a few of these, but you are likely to be able to fix them more efficiently than I can. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The link to the discussion about Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg is not working.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij, who uploaded the photo of Whitman's mother, uses a false rationale. The photo was a crime scene photo only and never used in a court case. In fact, he probably stole it from a website I used to own. At the time I got the photo (1999), it took a FOIA document and I had to pay for all the photos. They have since been released to the Austin Library. Victor9876 ( talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenditious editing on List of violently killed transgender people, Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan, Matthew Shepherd. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a pest and are blatantly uncivil. Kindly don't send me messages if you want to call me an idiot. Ok? I did not do that deliberately and you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to berate me for it. INTGAFW ( talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to leave me alone and you are not complying with that request. Kindly do so. INTGAFW ( talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how this fails verification when even the article title verifies the statement that I changed in the photo caption. It absolutely does not fail verification. I understand you have an issue with the image itself, but there no grounds to challenge the caption, especially as I rephrased it, which is not original research. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of cooperation, I invite you to refactor this comment, as it is rather unhelpful, to say the least. Cheers. BradV 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You're edit warring at
Murder of Gwen Araujo and
Murder of Amanda Milan. Edit warring
isn't allowed because it is always harmful to the project. Please stop. Rather, use the talk page to try and build a consensus for your edits. Thanks for understanding.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the only way. Thanks again. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Damien, I added to the tags the source for the photos - The Austin Historical Library. All of the Agencies, Federal and State worked on the information. A lot of them are co-mingled and have no mention of which or whom. There shouldn't be a problem and if there should be, a cease and desist order is easy (and recommended) to follow. Please withdraw the tags on the images. Thanks! Victor9876 ( talk) 06:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever actually add anything to wikipedia? It is clear that you enjoy tagging dozens of images for deletion daily, or templating articles ... but do you ever add any content to the overall project? Or do you merely enjoy harassing others with your tendentious drive-by requests? I can list at least 15 editors who you have edit-warred with in the last month or so and probably that many who have stated that you were harassing them or trolling. Please rethink your behavior and overall motivation for your actions ... and consider putting forth your efforts to add to this great endeavor, instead of merely subtracting from it. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.
— WP:QUOTE
Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time I am going to request that you quit the immature pestering. Your recent revert of my edit at Bay of Pigs was non-sensical as the link itself is set up incorrectly (hence why I removed it). It is clear that you are following my edits as a means of harassment. You already violated 3RR yesterday against me and have been blocked twice recently for your behavior. I have heard from at least 5 other editors who accuse you of harassment, and if you commit any such behavior after this, I will not only see to it that you are requested for a comment, but I will also organize all of those editors that you have harassed and see to it that you are banned. Your behavior is unacceptable. I have been more than reasonable in responding to your tendentious templating (ref'ing every single time you have requested it, including trying to respond to your concerns on quotes etc). You are acting like a petty child ... and this is my last warning to you to rethink your actions and correct them. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
At Che Guevara (photo). Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
EdJohnston stated that his "attempt at negotiation went nowhere" and "both users (...) gave any hint of willingness to compromise, or pursue WP:DR". Actually, when EdJohnston's suggested a RFC, I promptly agreed. I have refrained from further reverting when I noticed the other user was willing to ignore 3RR. And the whole point of the dispute was to use a tag that would attract more users to discuss the contents of a article owned by one user (specifically, discuss either it's adequate to have 61 quotations in the article). I'm completly for DR here! I even [ the help of other user], to avoid touching the owned article.
Decline reason:
That does not change that you and Redthoreau were edit warring up until your blocks, which were therefore appropriate. — Sandstein 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Damiens.rf. Since you didn't mention an RFC in that sentence, I didn't know that's what you meant. If you will consider an WP:RFC, can you please draft up the text, here on your Talk page, of the issue that you would present for other editors to comment on? The question should be neutrally phrased. Also, I'd like to be assured that you have a plan for avoiding conflict with RedThoreau in the future. Can you say if you have any ideas for doing that. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I non-administratively closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg because the image is no longer in use. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making bogus edit sumaries on the removal of sourced content as you did on Eye Color your reason has no validity, please do not remove photo again it could be considered vandalism if done again thank you-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a short friendly reminder (in case you forgot) about a question that I asked you on Talk:Che Guevara (photo)#Quote issue. Thanks and take your time. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that I have your attention.....three out of the four changes you made to that article have been reverted because they're bullshit changes. I've warned you before about trolling on that page, try it again and I'll push for a topic ban.
You tagged for sources where sources already existed at least three times. (All have been reverted)
The only change left standing is the change you made to the lead sentance regarding Dwight Lauderdale's LASIK surgery. I don't have any reason to change it, I think it sucks, of course, but I have no grounds to change it because I think it sucks. Bottom line, stay off the Dwight Lauderdale page, because you contribute nothing to the project!
KoshVorlon
> rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Re. History of painting and Western painting: this issue is acknowledged and being addressed in these and other articles, initially Color Field. See article talk page and also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Participation is welcome to work through the text and images properly. Ty 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
......I just reverted you AGAIN'. I will continue to revert any trolling you do on the Dwight Lauderdale article. The item you keep tagging as OR is, in fact supported by the source at the end of the article and therefore is NOT OR. The phrase you keep changing is ALSO supported by the referenced article. I don't give a fat rat's ass if you don't like it, it's supported by references and it will STAY IN. You, on the other hand, can STAY OUT of the article. You have contributed absolutely ZERO to the article and are actually HINDERING not helping the article. Make yourself useful and write an article instead! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your two faces are clearly showing. Your behaviour has already landed you in hot water in the past, reverting someone's own userpage edit is NOT on by any stretch. Timeshift ( talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No reply? I expected as much. Timeshift ( talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to
Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [ [30]] regarding Disussion of topic ban. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --— Kosh jumpgate 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't happen to be able to use IRC, do you? I'd kind of like to discuss this with you, but it might drag on if I keep on posting to your talk. If you can, please meet me in ##neurolysis. Thanks. — neuro (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to
Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Damiens, I have no problem building an encyclopedia, in fact, this article has undergone many changes since I first posted it. All of which have gone through without any problems from me (even when I've disagreed with them! :) ). Your edits, however, involve removal of referenced data, which is not supported by policy, that's why I keep reverting you. As the data itself is referenced by the article, in fact, word-for-word, it's inclusion is per policy. I am currently discussing this issue with Nishkid64 as well (not about your edits, but simply about the material itself). Thanks — Kosh Jumpgate 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with the subject of this article, even keeping in mind your clashes with her on the article talk page. Nonetheless, your continued antics on this page - most recently moving a clearly verifiable and notable publication for no apparent reason - is inappropriate. Rebecca ( talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm aware you've had disputes with User:Rebecca in the past but this is unnecessary given she's left Wikipedia. At best it only prolongs ill feeling over a past disagreement. Would you consider amending your goodbye message to something more neutral? Euryalus ( talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Damiens.rf,
i can not understand the reasons you give for your edits. The investigation by Heerfordt is exactly about Searl and his SEG, so i can not see how you can declare that as "unrelated". You might not like it's critical content, but still is about the Searl and his SEG.
The YouTube video simply shows what was printed in the newspapers. Feel free and request an archive copy to read it for yourself. To save other that work, the video should be seen as a courtesy. There are many more WP articles that refer to YT clips. So i really don't see what your point is, other than you might be uncomfortable with their critical content towards Searl.
Following your reasoning for the edits, both articles have to be deleted completely. After all, it could be considered pure self-promotion by Searl, and nothing of what is given as sources is really verifyable at all, let alone his claims to start with. The article is quite controversial, and it is purely pseudoscientific. This very nature makes it questionable. Therefore, any sources about the topic can be considered. Searl himself even acknowledges the very existence of Heerfordt, for example, so it really is related.
I'm going to revert your edits again now. Please discuss your proposed edits on the talk pages of the articles so that we can reach some consensus about them, before simply reverting it.
Greetings,
Chris -- 213.160.11.146 ( talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens,
I want to give you a heads-up that I reverted the List of programmers change because it wiped out a large chunk of computing history with regard to their contributions. While I agree that there were a number of red links, several significant programmers removed, including computer language inventors, important OS developers, and one of the two main developers of the WWW. Probably the links (brackets) should be removed, rather than the entries themselves.
kind regards, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 10:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Once is a bit edgy. Twice is too pointy. Please don't edit war over this, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I reverted a number of changes that you made to Feministing last night, trying to edit to appease your many legitimate points. (See more about why and how I restored certain edits on Feministing's talk page.) I reverted a lot of the edits because you deleted a couple of reliable sources that are important to establishing the subject's notability, particularly since the page was just created. I have a number of new sources that I plan on adding when I have a little more spare time, so please give me an opportunity (say, until the end of business today) to add these sources and expand the article appropriately before you bring your much-needed perspective to the article. :) I genuinely appreciate your help in making this article rigorous and solid. Thanks! RMJ ( talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Damiens, I'm looking for the AfD of Shanti Carson, but I can't find the page. Could you check the link? Regards, Baileypalblue ( talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_28#GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg was completly based on head counting. There's nothing on those "arguments" that exaplain why do we need to see that (notable) old-woman-on-a-wheelchair besides Senior Bush to understand the articles using that image. You should never use votes for establishing WP:NFCC#8 compliance. (Am I being an insensitive clod in referring her as the old-woman-on-a-wheelchair? Yes, but so should be anyone willing to apply WP:NFCC#8). -- Damiens.rf 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a baseless assertion putting words into my mouth. I do not close any discussion based on a headcount (see this example) and you are twisting things to assert I have. It is a discussion. You asserted the image failed NFCC#8 and two others refuted this in a way that I saw a relevant. Had others re-refuted their discussions we may have ended up as delete but it is never a head count - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit that I reverted was an attempt to invoke (inappropriately, in my opinion) WP:BURDEN in a content dispute over WP:NFCC. I have started a talk page discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, if you would like to contribute substantively to a discussion on the applicability of WP:BURDEN to things that (ostensibly) have nothing to do with verifiability. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
When making a report, it's considered a courtesy to inform those involved. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit [32]. It seems very likely to me that the dust jacket shown was glossy, i.e., shiny instead of matte. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You are engaged in edit-warring on the intelligent design article. This is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Edit war. You have engaged in multiple reverts on several occasions; please be advised that the three-revert rule is an absolute boundary, not an entitlement. In addition, it does not appear that you have contributed to the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design. You should seek to resolve your content dispute through discussion, not through edit warring. In addition, regarding this post to ANI, please read, and try to abide by, this behavioural guideline: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Guettarda ( talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
intelligent design. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Guettarda (
talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I am a either a little bit thick or confused (likely both, as I have yet to get my second cuppa), but I was unsure of your meaning. You are tagging the image for removal because it is from a news source? Many of our images are. I understand that if we could have a free image of a late federal judge leaving the armed compound of Native American protesters, we would use that, but no such image would appear to exist. As the image is discussed and described in the text of the article in which it is being used, how is it in violation of the NFCC? I look forward to hearing from you prior to proceeding. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've had done just 2 reverts (out of 10 edits) in the aforementioned article in the last 24hours prior to the blocking, and the article was already protected when I was blocked.
Decline reason:
Your second point is irrelevant. To your first point, I would consider you to have been disruptive, based on this and edit summaries like this and this. — Daniel Case ( talk) 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your support for the block is not based on the blocking reasons. The edit-summaries on the diffs you provide are not blockable offenses by any measure. And of course my "second point" is relevant. If I'm blocked for "edit warring" (not 3rr) in an article after the article is fully-protected, then the block is punitive rather than preventive. The block is not preventing me to "edit war". It's actually only preventing me to engage in the ongoing talk page discussion
Decline reason:
I consider your edits disruptive and your conduct blockable. The blocking admins' failure to select an appropriate block reason does not bar the admin reviewing the unblock request from concluding that the editor was blocked appropriately. I think this is explained at WP:GAB somewhere. — Daniel Case ( talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This image has been marked as "White House photograph 1996" and has been identified as a work of the federal government. It sure looks like an official White House photo to me, the sort of thing that would be taken by the official photographer when someone visits the President. What source information do you think is missing here? I'm removing your speedy deletion tag pending a better articulation from you of what the issue is. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Your most recent FFD nomination seems to be malformed. You didn't include the image name. Stifle ( talk) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you feel they are too small, I do have a picture with bigger ones too. =) JIP | Talk 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I am relatively inexperienced in editing Wikipedia and conducting myself in debates, so I want to apologize in advance for a recent error in judgment on my part by engaging in meat puppeteering with some Internet friends on the deletion debate surrounding Samhita Mukhopadhyay. Since this is clearly inappropriate and reflects an immature understanding of Wikipedia standards on my part, I'm going to discontinue my contribution to the debate, make note of my mistakes on the debate page, and take a break from heavy editing while I review Wikipedia standards more closely. Is this appropriate? What else can I do to rectify this situation?
I hope you will take this sincere apology in good faith. This has been a learning experience, and I appreciate your civility and help. Thanks. RMJ ( talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Damien, if the news media cover the Washington protest for Sean Goldman in regards to the relations of Brazil and the US, then how can YOU judge that it is not relevant to the overall relations between the US and Brazil. Afterall, this topic was discussed by Obama and Lula in their meeting Saturday, as the media noted, so it is relevant to them, and to the two country's relations, isn't it? You know that Hillary Clinton also discussed Sean Goldman with Brazil's leaders weeks ago. Why is your view of priorities stand over Lula and Obama's priorities at the meeting? Also, when you stoop down and say "Get a life," why is it that you personally verbally abuse Wikipedia volunteers. Do you need a vacation from your volunteer tasks? Perhaps it is you who needs to hear your own "Get a life" statement?
24.148.73.133 ( talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph
Damien Excuse me, but recentism does not address your "Get a life" statement to me. I expect an apology if you are capable of one. Your comment was totally unnecssary if you are an adult.
24.148.73.133 ( talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph
Please stop removing content from this. You may have a POV about Erin McKean; I do not. I added this as an interesting aspect of the topic. Just leave it alone, please. PamD ( talk) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Quinion source - I'm sorry you didn't notice that I specified the issue of the Newsletter to which I was referring. The site appears to use frames so that there isn't a URL specific to issue 596, but you can locate it by following obvious links from the home page. I'm also sorry that what appears to be a WP:POV attitude to Ms McKean is leading you to attack a harmless little article like this, while WikiPedia abounds in unsourced badly-written rubbish on a wide range of topics. Ah well, that's Wikipedia. I guess I have been lucky hitherto to avoid unpleasantness of this kind. PamD ( talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Damiens.rf Just a quick request regarding the image which was deleted from the file File:John-Serry-Sr.gif which was deleted from the infobox on the article John Serry, Sr.. If possible kindly arrange for the administrator/editor to undelete this image for fair use as a copyrighted historical photo of a noteworthy musician. I failed to explain during the debate that the image should be tagged for fair use in the article John Serry, Sr. since it:
I appologize for not including these remarks during the deletion review--alas I am totally unfamiliar with the deletion process and not very adept at editing articles. If possible- kindly arrange for a restoration of the image found in the deleted file. If this is no longer possible, would you be able to post an Image Undelete request for me?? I am not certain how to propose such an action. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely pjs012915-- Pjs012915 ( talk) 15:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Dear Damiens.rf - Thank you once again for your insights. Again I must apologize for my ignorance regarding copyright issues and the policies which Wikipedia utilizes in order to regulate images which are presented in the encyclopedia. Alas, I am quite ignorant of the technical issues involved. If possible, kindly reconsider the decision to delete the photograph in light of the following thoughts:
this musician's image was published in A Pictorial History of Radio (See John Serry, Sr. references) which documents images of noted performers in the history of radio. While the deleted image is not identical to those cited above, it is significant in that it portrays the same historical figure in his professional capacity. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo (depicting the use of the accordion by the musician as a legitimate orchestral instrument) and its historical significance (in the sense that few musicians of that era attempted to utilize the instrument in this fashion --See Accordion (Use in classical music)) are the object of discussion in the parent article John Serry, Sr.. As such it is both illustrative and educational and serves as a valuabe enhancement to the article.
Thanks again for your insights. I hope that this helps to clarify my thoughts for the benefit of the editors. Sorry that I cannot be of much more assistance. I appreciate your efforts to salvage the image for the benefit of future students of the instrument. Thanks again. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Having read the guidelines for the WP:BLP I see that information is meant to be unbiased and factual. I feel that you are inflicting a bias by deleting and rewording based on your opinions in the Nikol Hasler article. There is no need to threaten that I am in any violation of terms. As you ask for citations, it is being clarified that either the citation exists or your opinion based changes, such as "this person is not known" are being removed. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The onus is still yours to prove she's an "Internet Personality" and that she is "known".--Damiens.rf 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Assistance, please. If it is your desire to make all of Wiki better in reference of public pools of knowledge, how would you define someone as known and reference it? Given the amount of information available in any search regarding this person, it is not difficult to see that "internet personality" is fitting. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, sir, you are demanding that every bit of information have a reference. What prompted a reference of the person's biographical location to be deleted? BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This information is publicly known and the person speaks about her children as part of her public speaking with teens. The information is given by the person in her biography on her own column. Many BLPs list location and family. BeforeSwine ( talk)
In the article you insisted did not have the information about Hasler's foster care time, I found this: "As a foster child in an unstable home, Hasler became sexually active at 11. After receiving a scholarship to Southern Illinois University, she had to drop out to care for her baby. A single mom, she moved from a homeless shelter to a series of people's couches.
Now married in Waukesha and determined to raise her three children differently, Hasler said she's discussed sex with her kids since they were old enough to ask questions."
I have also provided more external links to help with proof that the person is "known". I don't wish to be combative, merely to become a better wikipedian. If you have done this for some amount of time, I am sure you can understand that there is a level of frustration at trying to enter information in the proper format while having others just delete everything entered, even if it is referenced. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC).
Stop stalking me and attempting to delete every image I upload or edit. PRODUCER ( talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
you removed a portrait of Robert Brackman from the Robert Brackman article? Carptrash ( talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please not that I have undone your redirect tag on this article. In the future kindly do not delete the article's entire contents with a simple redirect tag. The results of the deletion review process clearly indicate that contents from the article should be merged into the parent article John Serry Sr. It is clearly not appropriate to simply eliminate the contents of American Rhapsody entirely while failing to retain any description of the composition within the parent article. I have notified an administrator of your attempt to expunge the entire article in this manner and requested that he monitor your actions in this regard. Kindly refrain from taking such drastic action until a proper attempt can be made to merge the contents into the parent article. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC) User:pjs012915
Please see User_talk:John#File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg. J Milburn ( talk) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens, I reverted (part of) your edit at The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach--that there was nothing else to report is the essence of what in Dutch is called the "cucumber time," and it's found in the source: "Vanwege de komkommertijd gedurende de zomermaanden (dat was ruim 100 jaar geleden dus ook al) pakte de landelijke pers groot uit met het filmschandaal in Zandvoort." Your removal of the wikilink to silly season, that's fine with me. Drmies ( talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Violence against LGBT people. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. -
ALLST✰R▼
echo
wuz here @ 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are arguing for the image's deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, there's no point in screwing around with the rationales simultaneously and removing them from articles. Discuss at FfD and leave it there. One central place of discussion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
read the source in question? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption. Also note that the previous WP:AN3 report may lead to action if any more reverts occur at Violence against LGBT people regarding the image. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Damiens, yes I reverted "that" image again. It's copyrighted by Encyclopedia Britanica, and therefore cannot be on a user page.
Per their own page:
Ownership: The content on the Services is the property of Britannica, its affiliated companies or licensors and is protected by international copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
Just a heads up —
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) shit! forgot to sign
--
Courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
The reason people remove or hide the discussions from the intelligent design talk page is because it gets a lot of trolling from people who want to portray it as something meritorious, somehow science-based, and for general soapboxing. Hiding the text or removing it from the page discourages engaging with such editors (which long and bitter experience has shown often have minimal appreciation for wikipedia's policies and biology in general, and virtually never have anything substantive and appropriate to add) and in the long term simply saves time. If you feel there is actual merit to the points established, perhaps bring them up in a separate section. The actual comments I see as lacking any merit - the citations are to intelligent design advocates (whose claims have been thoroughly debunked), the claims are also to basic issues long since dealt with (abiogenesis and evolution are separate, unconnected ideas), Darwin's black box is also useless as a citation in a serious page, and anything that takes intelligent design seriously from a non-critical perspective is pretty much bunk. You are also verging on a three revert violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I realize you're probably busy going down the List of fictional supercouples in an image deleting spree, but do you think you can answer a quick question for me. Why are you choosing File:Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg for deletion but not the one at the top of that article. They serve the same purpose in giving a visual depiction of the actors portraying the characters. I might understand if both images were of the same actors, but I added the second one to show Leon in the role as part of the fictional pairing. Rocksey ( talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to go after most, if not all, of the images I have uploaded? Most of those images are perfectly valid regarding fictional characters. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You placed a {sources} tag on an article with nine cited sources; this confuses me. I removed the tag, as it doesn't appear to have a clear purpose on that article. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume I created it for a good reason, but since the page it redirects to has been deleted, I can't tell you why. So I have no objection to it being deleted also. -- Jameboy ( talk) 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
For excellent nominations at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, pointing out that WP:NFCC is not optional. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hi. Thanks for the barnstar. But I believe this closing was a mistake (it's not one of my nominations). Associated Press would be interested in licensing this image for us. We can't claim fair use on it. Fair use does not mean "using for free instead of paying". Our use is not transformative, we're using the image for the very same purpose as USA Today, for instance, and they paid AP for that use. Please, reconsider. This is pretty much a clear cut case around here. See this recent well put argument, for instance. -- Damiens.rf 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since whetn are magazine covers not fair use? What makes you an expert? Mrdthree ( talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version of this image, which is now entirely my own work. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
May I ask the reason why you listed this for deletion, and what source information you are missing here. The image is correctly identified as coming from the National Archive (I cross-checked) with the archive number; and it's tagged as public-domain government work, which seems also correct. So please tell me which additional information you'd like to see. Averell ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, if you are not already aware, that I have taken your advice about looking through my image contributions and weeding out images that really are not needed. I have just done that with the Josh Madden article, and also did it with a few other articles some days ago. I am definitely seeing things more through your eyes now on how useless some of these images are. Of course, there are some images I have disagreed with you on and will disagree with you on, but I am now more open to images that are seemingly only decorative being deleted. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I agree that we should delete AP images, but comments like this do not help. – Quadell ( talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your issues at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 9 and explained why I still believe the image is fair use. A short time later, eight images I had uploaded at various times over a span of a few years and used in eight different articles were all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 12 within a span of five minutes. I cannot understand why you would take a sudden interest in images I have uploaded other than based on our prior interaction. I would appreciate an explanation for your actions in nominating these images, which would appear to present issues of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Alansohn ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you've been discussed here on ANI. – Quadell ( talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling a summit on LGBT rights "pompous" isn't very helpful. "Mississippi State LGBT Summit", best that I can figure, was a summit on LGBT rights, differences, and the like for people in the State of Mississippi. Pretty straight forward. Oh and the "2005 Saint-Etienne Rogue-Dreamers Victims Summit", good for you for presiding over it. I presided over the "2000 Virginia State Disablities Conference", doesn't make me or it "pompous". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You know that your conduct at Equality Mississippi has been widely criticized, by many people who say that, although the article has issues that need addressing, your methods are problematic and come off as hostile and bordering on harassment... and you still choose an insulting edit summary? I posted on the talk page to try to come to consensus rather than battling with other users- I am not, all by myself, consensus. I'm so irritated with you right now that I have no inclination to help further. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
From reading the discussions at ANI, it appears to me that there is a strong possibility that you may be blocked or even banned due to your interactions with Allstarecho. I sense that you are only trying to do what you believe is correct, but the way in which you are doing it seems to be overly aggressive and too focused on one editor. I do not know why no one else has attempted to discuss this with you, or why you are not participating at ANI. If you care about being blocked or banned, I suggest that you immediately stop editing articles related to Allstarecho, try to be more careful how you phrase your discussions on the talk pages (especially if English is not your first language), and explain your intentions at the ANI discussions. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you have been the victim of an unjust block at Wiki pt (Portuguese), as our policy allows the kind of images you were uploading, even if part of the community is against them. I've appealed on that block and it has been removed, please check if you are still blocked. I advise you, however, not to engage in reversions but rather discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Best regards, -- Darwinius ( talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The attribution given at that page is quite common for releases via OTRS and well in keeping with the body of attribution templates stored Category:Attribution templates. While public domain sources do not require attribution, sources under most free licenses do. While I am personally of the opinion that the attribution template is not strictly necessary in this case, the copyright holder disagrees. Noting the verbatim duplication of copyrighted text taken from other sources is standard and there is no good reason to remove this notice. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at your contribution history and I would like to thank you on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad for working this hard to wipe out any signs of opposition to the current regime of Iran.-- Breathing Dead ( talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.
This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.
please review the article V (programming language)
Hi there, thanks for informing me about the copyright information required for the photos I uploaded as a gallery on the Camel Trophy page. I have the required information (website links) How do I add this information to the pictures? I appreciate that you directed me to the media copyright page for questions but this isn't particularly helpful. Thanks for your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper ( talk • contribs)
I took the images from a Camel trophy website. I now that currently they will not be allowed here but I have contacted the Camel Trophy site webmaster for permission. If permission is granted can I then upload the photos? Thanks for your help and advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper ( talk • contribs)
In this diff you write "this article is about a murder, not a murder victim", and the next day in this diff you write " the Murder of Michael Causer is not a murder article". Perhaps you could explain your reasoning to me? I happen to think that the article is about Michael Causer and about the murder. -- Law Lord ( talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens, could you please start using the talk pages to discuss your concerns with the Iranian election related articles? This back and forth using edit summaries is getting a bit ridiculous... thanks.
—
Ω (
talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Then please explain why I cant have this? Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 8#File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg. Happens everytime, no one will reply to my query for a week and the file is deleted unanswered. How am I supposed to learn then? Suede67 ( talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently (and correctly) deleted the controversy section from the article Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century. There was an IP user who refused to stop changing the order of Man O'War and Secretariat. I only got them to stop, when I encouraged them to add a controversy section. I also warned them at the time that the content they provided was not adequately sourced and that sooner or later someone would remove the content. Well, here we are. The deed is done. I would appreciate your help watching the article. imars ( talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
While we're on the issue of discussing the legitimate use of magazine covers in articles, would this qualify as unnecessary? Should it be nominated for deletion? Thanks. Brian Reading ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. In situations like this you might consider using this template.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have hoped that, with an intro on your talk page such as you have, you would maintain a cool head. But subtly-veiled insults like this aren't cool. Nobody likes biting summaries. Seriously. Even one word can be quite hurtful.
Please be sure to be considerate in the future. I know that you may feel exasperated, but treating other editors like trash isn't the answer. Thank you, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
As for "WhisperToMe you're completly mistaken in your lack of dedication to the project mission... and If you think this is unreasonable, please go argue with this Wales guy or go contribute to some other project, thank you good bye." - I feel that I am very much dedicated to the project mission. Why not rephrase things like saying "XXX, It's absolutely possible to produce a free image of a dead person: You just talk to some photographer owing a photo (taken preferably before the subject's death) and ask him to release the photo under a free licensing." - That way you cut to the point and are not questioning other people's dedication.
The first step of deletion review is talking to the closing administrator- asking them to reconsider and offering your reasons. Note that deletion review is not just a "second go" at deletion- instead, it is for when a closure has been made incorrectly. As such, you would have to focus on how the primary argument was not responded to- no one offered an explanation of why the image was actually needed, they only discussed the importance of the campaign, and why it was irreplaceable; neither of which featured in the nomination statement. J Milburn ( talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your removal of Murder of Michael Causer from the Murders category. To me that removal seems completely without merit. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? -- Law Lord ( talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I restored the image File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Previously, I deleted the image after J Milburn's nagging because the discussion was pretty clear. Currently, there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, so we should keep such images on hold until the discussion concludes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm personally a little sceptical of the whole process at the moment (and feel some of King's actions a little odd- there have been/are discussions about that) but your nomination looks more than sound. It would appear that the vast majority of arguments in the deletion debate were completely invalid. If the close is upheld at this deletion review, I think that really will be the nail in the coffin of my faith in the FfD process. J Milburn ( talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Damiens: The speedy tags are not valid. Please don't game the system. The image was orphaned because it was deleted, and so it cannot be deleted because it is orphaned; that would be circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make
personal attacks on other people, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG was moved to Commons and therefore speedily deleted at Wikipedia without discussion. Then, commons:File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG to see it was dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Damiens.rf&action=edit§ion=5eleted at Commons after discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG. I was the photographer. You were the nominator for this discussion. Is it possible that the image might be viable on WP under Fair use. The file had been at use in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency as shown by this edit-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reuploaded. Can you tell if I had cropped the prior version that was deleted.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirects go to WP:RFD, not MFD. Also, there wasn't really a reason to nominate this for deletion anyway; since the target is also at MFD, the best solution is to hold out and wait for the discussion on the target to end first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you mean well however that anon has been baiting editors across multiple pages and talkpages and user talkpages for a while. Their "concerns" about content are masked personal attacks against many editors so we try not to encourage them. If they are unable to work collaboratively then likely this is not a great match for their interests. Their "content concern" were addressed already and seemed to be inflated in the first place. Labeling my edits as vandalism is rather insulting but I trust you meant well. If you look at the edits and the source you likely will see there is no plagarism or copyvio as claimed. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 3 hours for this. That was highly inappropo, you opened the ifd yourself, rv'd the close, which was a clear keep, and made a personal attack in the edit summary. A calmly worded DRV would have been the proper course of action. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other editors of self-promotion without proof as you did at this redirect for discussion entry. This is especially true if you have not taken the time to verify your claim that "Six Sigma Pricing" is a non-notable term. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and it should be respected. Failure to do so is detrimental to the project and an extremely selfish way to act towards other editors. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding editor conduct before continuing to contribute further. Thank you. 141.214.37.134 ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
User talk:Rlevse. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
MBisanz
talk 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Re this, you are way out of line here. Knock it off. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found some book reviews in U.S. newspapers for Tribal Leadership and added them to the article, so I think notability is now indicated. -- Eastmain ( talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Although the image here is larger and has a 4:3 instead of 3:4 orientation, it is essentially the same image and the website states the same author, so it's fine. Thanks for fixing the problem. MECU≈ talk 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I nominated this for deletion at exactly the same moment that you did. What are the odds? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not know of any sources, in fact I tagged it. I do not truly know if Suzanne and Jim are notable per Wiki:musician guidelines; it was nominated to be speedy deleted, but speedy was rejected due to the "assertion of notability"... I'm searching for sources now. The articles' creator hasn't responded... not a good sign usiually. Frog47 ( talk) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your nomination for deletion is showing up as a red link on the David Sustak page. Corvus cornix talk 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, Thanks & Regards. -- Bhadani ( talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added some references, both print and online, to the AfD for the Rock and Ice climbing club in an attempt to demonstrate its notability -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and Ice climbing club. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm no foul, okay? Innocent mistake, and I've toned down the harsh language in the AFD discussion page from an administrative standpoint, as it is divisive and unproductive. I like to emphasize content, not contributor. (In other words, you're forgiven. ;-) ) Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As the internet was beginning its real growth as a commercial application, many sites opened up to sell stuff. Crutchfield was the first company to start up its own site, as opposed to hiring a firm to do it for them, or just offering its line to another vendor to sell. Kind of like the difference between buying Taco Bell products in a grocery store and going to one of their restaurants. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in any information related to high asia mountaineering, just ask Eberhard Jurgalski the leading chronicler and statistician of world mountaineering. There is no need to correct his data. Pepto65 ( talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you find it helpful to ask Viewfinder to get a sense, which kind of source Jurgalski is. Pepto65 ( talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Anon editors are not de facto vandals. Also, there was tons of legitimate content lost; next time try reverting to a a better version. It doesn't need to be perfect; don't lose all that useful and referenced content because it may have issues. I've restored a good version and tagged it for the issues I saw. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Found this. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The trip hop page needs external links. Those websites are needed. What the hell is wrong with you? Fclass ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you take this to AfD if you think it should be merged? AfD is for deletion only, not for merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it considered vandalism to report the truth? Is it because you don't want it to be true? You reversed a set of WELL documented edits to Freers' profile? Do you have an self-interest in smashing his reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.61.67 ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that I took so long to respond. I have an important out of country trip tomorrow and you know how it is. O.K. I did fix the link. Stan Griffin is a writer and contributor to Deaf Friends International an online magazine for the worldwide Deaf Community. Stan Griffin is the author of various books: [1]. Take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. -- jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop with A) baseless accusations, B) personal attacks, and C) vendetta-based editing. Though you seem to gain personal satisfaction from the frustration they cause, all three are utterly unproductive, and have no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. — jacobolus (t) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Talk:Comet (programming): Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have removed a personal attack from the talk page, please be
civil and don't drive contributors away. -
83.254.208.192 (
talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Which people are we talking about? Lord Balin ( talk) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
About list of software, please see Talk:Online_chat, thanks. - 213.115.160.72 ( talk) 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed your inline edit [2] to IP 63.64.108.5's comment. I think it is best to refute his claim below, and not to modify his text. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi ( talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You shoud consider more ethical behaviour. Your motivations might be from racism to political. Whatever they are, you are a bad guy. Why did you choose Damiens as an Icon? This historical figure is not a good example. You should choose somebody less violent than an anarchist murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. Michellecrisp ( talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I always love deletionists. Not. Thanks for getting a whole bunch of images deleted where free images are next to impossible. Timeshift ( talk) 06:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeep! Thank you so much for letting me know about the weird imposter situation over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. That's all kinds of scary. I'm going to look into what can be done. Thank you again for letting me know! Vickser ( talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC) dear Vickser. In French History Damiens is a very controversial figure. He supposededly murdered a king because he cared about a religious community. Actually many historians think his motivation was actually to fight this community by putting the blame on it. think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yep you're quite right with your rv. on my removal of the unref tag. It wasn't an WP:RS in the slightest. It's a commercial site for middle eastern skiing! Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks! It's a bit slow going, as most of the sources I can find are in French, but I'm trying to go through it slowly with my limited knowledge of French, a lot of help from Google Translate, and whatever corroborating sources I can find. :) Cheers. ← George [ talk 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my attitude towards you in our recent disagreement was a little flamey. In all truth, this was entirely intentional, and I regret taking such a poor attitude towards you. From all I can tell, you're a good editor with your heart in the right place, even though I disagree with you on when, exactly, one should ignore rules. I certainly should have known better than to read the wrong things (bad intentions and a desire to slap people around with rules to get one's way) into your actions, and even if you weren't acting with the best of intentions, that still wouldn't give me a license to act like a total dick towards you. I'm glad, however, that we resolved things in a way which we're all (as far as I can tell) happy with, something that would never have happened if you hadn't stirred the pot as you did. Please don't hold my occasional assholery against me, mmkay?
tl;dr sorry for being a dickhead, and here's a picture of a pretty bird. Lewis Collard! ( lol, internet) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Your use if twinkle is far from ideal, labelling editors who are making good faith edits (even if misguided) as vandals. Here is a selection of those edits; [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Continuing to use twinkle to label these edits as vandalism, and to help you edit war will lead to removal of your twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please justify your repeated deletions of the link to the site Chris Barnes...Beyond Tanner, which is a biography of the actor that this article is about.
Thank you. Cbsite ( talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE KEEP YOUR GARBAGE OFF MY TALK PAGE. Cbsite ( talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't edit on the English Wikipedia if English isn't your primary language. You're just embarassing yourself:
Cbsite ( talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
you got a friend...
Lewis Collard! (
lol,
internet) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a message on my talk page warning about disparaging messages - so don't post there, ok? What I did was completely fine, and I will do it again if you continue with the nonsense you are carrying on with. You are making nominations in violation of WP:POINT to bully Australian editors and I will report you if you keep doing so. You do not understand Australia and you should stop making up spurious reasons for deleting photos when they are entitled to be there. There is not a blanket ban on non-free images, so stop trying to introduce one via the back door through pushing the boundaries of policy creep via the back door. If you want a blanket ban then od it through the proper channels. JRG ( talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a complaint about my rather unpleasant experience of you several weeks ago, if you'd like to chime in. Cbsite ( talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what language you excel in, but it obviously isn't English. PLEASE STOP corrupting the Joanna Newsom page.
Cheers,
Snoop God (
talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
if you knew anything about Joanna Newsom and could be bothered looking at the page (for references) you wouldn't be waisting my time. Vandalise the page again and I will report it! Snoop God ( talk)
You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wil you please stop putting every fair use image up for deletion. It in no way helps wikipedia and I will be forced to report you if you keep putting images with adeqaute rationales up for deletion. Images of deceased people when a free image is impossible to obtain it is within wikipedian policy and copywright law to use the images if a replaceable image is not available. AN image used to identify the subject is encyclopedia and therefore rmeoval is damaging. Such images providing they have a fair use rationale and are irreplaceable are generally acceptable on wikipedia. Ask any administrator. The Bald One White cat 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Those images you have nominated are not adequate for deletion unless a free image becomes available. If you study WP:FAIRUSE you will see that this is acceptable.Rule 1 is: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
I've been on here a long term and done a great deal of work for wikipedia and know what is generally acceptable for fair use. If we had free images of these people who are no longer living we would be using them instead, but as we don't and it won't be possible to obtain a new one we can legitamtely use them. The Bald One White cat 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think the image policy is but Yone Minagawa has an adequate rationale and a caption within the article which clearly helps the reader encyclopedically. If you remain fixated by your idea of what is not acceptable you are going to make yourself very unpopular on here fast and in doing so have to learn the hard way The Bald One White cat 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My time on wikipedia does not revolve around images. I see that is appears to be a Allied Press image. ALl I can suggest is that we contact Allied Press and ask them what their policy is with wikipedia using their images. What do you suggest we do then? The Bald One White cat 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Damien - can you stop tagging images for deletion just for the mo? Your interpretation of the NFCC is essentially under dispute, and flooding the IfD page with deletion requests that all amount to the same thing is not getting us anywhere. Can you hold off until some kind of consensus is reached, then you can tag merrily away knowing what the prevailing opinion is? Cheers Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your desire for an accurate article about me. I share that desire. To that end, stop removing valid citations. There is plenty of evidence that I have been making a living from free software for many many years. Look, for example, on the Free Software Business mailing list. If I was a fraud, surely someone would have called me out. You have no reason to call me a liar; no evidence for it whatsoever; and there's plenty of evidence (if only you would stop vandalizing my page) that I am not lying. RussNelson ( talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Damiens.rf. Though I'm still unclear on why you could be thought to have a COI on this article, take a look at WP:COIN#Russ Nelson. You are welcome to add your own opinion there.
Maybe we should treat online bios of the subject (hosted at an organization he's part of) as being similar to his own blog, i.e. a self-published testimony? This may be accepted as an external link on the person's own article, though it could not be used as a reference for matters of fact, per WP:SPS. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant to put this comment at the end of this thread -- only to find you archive comments after just two days.
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested:
Although, it might be wiser to take it a bit more slowly. Not to upset too many people all at the same time, you know.
I agree, but I would go much farther.
Some of your nominations hold merit. But, in my opinion, it would be far, far better for the wikipedia if you changed how you nominated articles:
It seems to me that if you were to devote the same amount of effort to deletion nominations, but make them without violating the wikipedia's civility policies, you would have to cut back the volume of your nominations. There is nothing wrong with this. Sure, your time is valuable. But the time of good-faith uploaders is just as important as yours.
You absolutely can not ask good faith uploaders to feel slighted when your nominations represent less than a full effort to be clear, or civil, so that your nomination time is spent more efficiently.
Assuming that a nomination you make is in fact based on policy, but you do not explain it sufficiently well that a good faith uploader can understand it, you are not just doing a disservice to that good-faith uploader -- you are doing a disservice to the entire project. When you are unwilling, or unable, to explain to a good-faith uploader why the image they uploaded should be deleted you will not only piss them off, but you leave them in the position where they still don't know what they did wrong. So, unless they leave the project in disgust, they are going to continue to upload other images, in good faith, which may fail to comply with policy in the same way as the image you just nominated. How the heck are they supposed to know what they did wrong when you make rude, opaque, obfuscated explanations?
This is not just a waste of their time -- it is a waste of everyone's time. And it unnecessarily erodes the general level of civility on the project.
If you think an image should be deleted -- but you don't think you are capable of offering a civil, meaningful explanation why that image should be deleted that someone who is not an insider on the deletion fora could understand -- let someone else nominate it for deletion. If you think it is important ask someone who you think can explain why the image should be deleted for help.
Please consider -- isn't it possible that if you can't offer a simple explanation as to why an image should be deleted -- that you might be mistaken, and that image does not, in fact, merit deletion, after all?
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S.
You might consider telling the archive robot to allow comments to be left on your page for more than two days. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but only keeping comments around for two days might be interpreted as a reckless disregard for the value of other's feedback. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Life really is too short to spend all your time trying to defend something which nobody pays you for or obliges you to do. A great deal of time is wasted on wikipedia by pointless discussion and threats of deletions. It does nothing to enchance the quality and reputation of wikipedia, and I really have little time to have to keep defending deletions and trying to state my case. What I will never understand is how you seem to get personal satisfaction from deleting content which can be the only explanation as to why you are so dedicated to solely thinking about this area of the project.
Believe it or not, I try to avoid confict or ANI disreputes as much as possible and get on with building the encylopedia. I only react or file a complaint if I believe content on wikipedia which people have worked hard for on here is under threat. I try to focus solely on content but if something is under threat of affecting this and I see a deliberately deletionist course of action then I come into conflict with editors such as yourself when I would rather no have to. The Bald One White cat 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:TROLL. The Bald One White cat 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ Non-free fair use in}}
I can't say I know much about the image policies, but this certainly is acceptable. --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The licensing template has been approved by the administration of wikipedia. It is generally accepted in non free rationale criteria not only on here but under United States law under Fair use. Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also non existant?? If the claim of fair use was invalid I seriously doubt anybody here would have dreamed of creating a template that implies use of the image is acceptable. By rebuking my images you are basically saying that the creator of this template and indeed the fair use law is redundant. If wikipedia did not accept such images why on earth would they create a licensing tag with a clear copywright mark on it???
![]() | This work is
copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at
Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or
Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at
Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
qualifies as
fair use under
United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be
copyright infringement. See
Wikipedia:Non-free content and
Wikipedia:Copyrights. | ||
|
If you are implying that this licensing is invalid, then automatically all non free content should be removed from wikipedia as somebody somewhere had to pay for an image originally. The Bald One White cat 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
PS your behavior has been raised on User:Keeper76's talk page. This is fast becoming the new ANI. :) --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I;ve found a free image. Try reverting me now or finding that that is copywrighted. The Bald One White cat 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Both images have now been deleted. Happy? The Bald One White cat 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you realise how many flickr agreements I have made and how much work I have done finding free image content to add to articles. You seem to think I am just this copywright glutton who only tries to upload non free images but I have actually worked as hard as any editor on here in trying to do so. The Bald One White cat 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing is for sure we need to come to a solid conclusion legally about what qualifies for fair use as many of our existing images are being used in the same way that the image your removed of Soe Win was. If you think that the current policy is redundant then I would seriously suggest you go about it in a formal discussion rather than picking on isolated images uploaded by myself. The Bald One White cat 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Because even if I had stated that Corbis was the owner of the image and added every detail imaginable you would have still claimed that we couldn't use the image because of payment issues. This applies to many of the images we have on here. The Bald One White cat 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You can respond on your talk page its fine rather than copying it to mine. As I said even if I had explained about Corbis and why it qualifies for use here without payment, there is no rationale under the sun you would have found acceptable for the claim of that image. The same goes for other images where you seme to imply that no rationale is valid evne if it shows the deepermost respect to the copywright holder and the content in the image is irreplaceable. I am fully aware you can't wave a magic wand but given the criteria layed down in the copywright fair use requirements and fair use law there must be a way in which some rationale could claim for such an image. The Bald One White cat 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I file a "deleted image" appeal? (I don't see a button anywhere on the page for the deleted image for it!) If you can help (me find where to file, not to appeal) -- thanks! Justmeherenow ( ) 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Damien. ANy idea how we would go about finding permisssion to use the image of the baby with two heads seen here. The image is used on all the news sites but has obviously been sold to these people so I haven't uploaded it. However do you think its possible to find out given that we will never get another alternative to identify it. The Bald One White cat 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Mmm I don't know it not the same as a photo. Ah well it doesn't matter for now there is an external link to it and the image is all over the web. The thing is with many images we can see them within seconds by looking eleswhere but it is nice to have an image with the article (copywright permitting) of course. That image is owned by one agnecy though as I have checked and I bet they're making a mint out of it. In this circumstance I can see how it would be difficult to try to use the image without paying. The Bald One White cat 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Before simply reverting my removal of your bad faith IFD you might have looked to see that I had changed the license template and added a non-free use rationale. I have since also uploaded a new image (that does not have press-kit NFCC#6 issues) and under the website's copyright has permission to be displayed on the web for non-commercial purposes (like display in Wikipedia). I'll write the same thing at the IFD. You saw my edit history - but as usual you are acting like a bully to conveniently ignore it for your own purposes. Are you ever going to learn? JRG ( talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering if you could look into seeing what the expiry date is on danish copyright images? The Bald One White cat 22:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is Reid?(in case you didn't read the references section) All of my statements in that section of the article are drawn from Reid's book on Canadian painting. I could reference them from him, but then the single source issue is still present. I will try to find more references. Personally, I think that such a great amount of maintenance tags on such a small section of the article is excessive. Lithoderm ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, the ISBN is already there: John Goodwin Lyman#References. Lithoderm ( talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you're reverting edits by Tarheelz - which I was also forced to do last night - so if you believe the term "supermodel" is non-NPOV, there is a debate going on right now you might be interested in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion Mbinebri ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to use OTRS and I *did* get permission to use that portrait - i don't know why your singling out me. Paul Austin ( talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The link you continually cite on non-free content is in relation to images, video clips, etc - not cited verbal statements (please re-read it and familiarize yourself with wiki policy, which you seem to be unclear about). You have offered no justifiable reasoning for your drive-by hasty deletions of sourced, notable, and properly weighted commentary, and I will continue to revert until you do so or discuss your removal and achieve consensus. Under your current incorrect rationale, no quote could ever be used. thank you. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there! I hope you'll like the new one :-) Emilfaro ( talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Taking your irrational anti-quote crusade, to every quote I have ever added on Wikipedia is a means of harassment ... in response to current disagreements. Nearly all of these quotes have NEVER been a problem for any other editor, and you have not justified your (no quote) policy. In addition, you never discuss your drive-by removals, as you hastily go page to page deleting every quote you find that I have ever added. If you continue this behavior I will report you to wiki administration & I will continue to revert your behavior for as many days as it takes, until you achieve some consensus or show me the specific policy BANNING all use of quotes. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
discuss your rationale first, before templating articles (which should be a last resort). Thank you. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use
"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
Redthoreau ( talk)RT 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that it is important to have an image on the page, what is more important is having an appropriate image on the page. This is, after all, an article in an encyclopedia and thus the images on the page, especially at a focal point such as an infobox, should be somewhat respectful and representative. A simple portrait-style image (such as the one that was removed) is more appropriate than an image of the subject carrying a tray of drinks. Was the subject a waiter? Or a bartender? No, he was the Hon. Premier of South Australia. Please refrain from re-adding that image until a suitable replacement can be found. ABVS1936 ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you think through your actions a little more.
The image that you have now twice tagged is very clearly from the era noted in image notes (i.e. approximately 1910), forty-odd years clear of the limit on public domain images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to go find the source for this image rather than deleting it for jollies when you and I both know that it is definitely public domain?
This is on the same day that I've seen you a) try to delete an image of a dead person by claiming that he was in fact, alive, and b) claim that one of the most significant feminist book publishers in history was a self-published vanity press. Perhaps you should be a little more careful with your editing, because that's three times in the one day where your carelessness has negatively impacted upon the encyclopedia. Rebecca ( talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that in future you might want to read more closely before making accusations of that nature - since you're so familiar with Wikipedia policies, you might want to take heed of WP:BLP, which is one of our most important.
Seal Press is a significant imprint of a major publishing company. Their books are in I dare say most large bookstores in the Western world, and several are staples of university courses around the world (in fact, they put out one of the most cited women's studies texts ever written). I don't know where the hell you got the idea that they were a vanity press, but once again, you really need to think things through before you come out with a claim like that in a Wikipedia article.
As for the image, you know from the state of the image that it was made well before 1955, which it would have to be after to be copyrighted. You have two courses of action here - a) go look for the source to confirm the obvious, and b) delete a perfectly good and perfectly legal image. I'm damned if I know why you're choosing the latter course, but it certainly ain't helping the project. Rebecca ( talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering your history with the article before, it might well be better for you to pick an article to work on that you don't have quite such an erratic history with - especially since the article is a BLP, and that you have had ongoing negative engagement with its subject. Rebecca ( talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
According to the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, it was User:Rebecca that violated 3RR. I was doing valid changes to the article (like adding and formating references and external links), I tried to collaborate with her, only to receive reverts of my edits.
Decline reason:
This block was discussed at WP:ANI#Intervention welcomed, and consensus appears to be that you were disruptive. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, MaxSem. But I had already been blocked (for 24hs) for the reasons discussed on that ANI thread. This time, I wasn't blocked "for being disruptive", but "for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti", and that's what I'm disputing here. To the the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, I add that Rebecca was reverting valid edits I was doing to Jessica Valenti, like adding and formating sources and formating external links. In her reverts, valid information was lost, like that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post" and the use of the template cite-web on the Colbert Report reference. Please, carefully review the situation. Thanks.
Decline reason:
It is clear that you were edit-warring on this page. Your last block for edit-warring ended just hours before you started again: that you should so quickly recommence edit-warring so quickly is disturbing. I therefore fully endorse Smashville's escalation of the block to a week and strongly urge you not to edit war when the block expires. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ok, I fail to see how that was edit warring. I tied to communicate with Rebecca, but she preferred to keep reverting my valid edits. Now, due to Rebecca's edits, the Jessica Valenti article has a broken reference (number 4), the references number 5 is no longer formated with {{ cite web}}, it no longer mentions that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post", the interviews she gave about her book are hidden in the external links section (even without link-descriptions) instead of incorporated in the article as references, not to mention the reference Rebecca broke and had to be repaired by the bot AnomieBOT.
Nevermind, she's the former member of arbcom and I'm the recently blocked drama queen. -- Damiens.rf 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) Smashville, I will explain how each of these diffs occurred and why I believe they can't be sincerely interpreted as "Damiens is edit warring, violated 3RR" and why what other users are doing matters. It will be long, I and wish you could put as much dedication to read it as I've put to write.
The diff "one" is actually an undoing of an accidental article blanking by myself. If you use the diff function correctly and compare it to the version you called "your original version", you'll see that I was formating the external links with the {{ cite web}} template. I did had to undo Rebecca's previous revert, since she reverterd a series of 6 valid edits by me where I added some references, formated some others, added content and cleaned the external links. User:Rebecca undid all of that with the justification "(revert edits that made grammar worse" [8].
Rebecca then reverted (2nd time) my use of {{ cite web}} and all previous improvements using just the justification "Nyet. Removing changes that made article worse" [9] (Note that since her first revert I was trying to communicate with her at her talk page.)
In the diff "two", if you really compare it with "my original version", you will notice that I was not only undoing Rebecca's 2nd revert, but also, incorporating external links as content and references to the article.
After that, I added more improvements, like trying a better format for the references section [10], trying to homogenize the use of italics through the article [11] and even trying to address what (I believe could be) Rebecca's concerns with my grammar [12].
Then User:Rebecca reverted it all again (3rd time), saying simply "Revert, again, edits making article worse than the original article" [13].
In the diff "three", I undo User:Rebecca's 3rd revert, believing that she was making some progress in our talk page conversations, were I was repeatedly asking her to help me to fix her "grammar" concerns, and explaining that things like adding new references and formating existing ones with {{ cite web}} could not be "making article worse than the original".
I went on with MOS improvements in the references [14] and adding more content to the "Essays" section [15]...
Just to see Rebecca not only reverting (4th time) everything again, but also completely removing the "Essays" section [16] that I had just started to work on to improve!!! This section also served as a reference to some claims in the article, and now the article is broken without it (see the reference #4 in the current (rebecca's) version of the article, that now mentions an non existing section).
She went on to remove one more paragraph from the article that she doubled a "clueless factoid" [17]
And note that before her 4th revert, I had already gently warned her about the risk of violating 3RR (on her talk page).
Your diff "four" is me, not only undoing Rebeca's 3RR-violating revert (and subsequent content removal), but also adding more content to the (now restored) "Essays" section.
I went on to add information about one place more where the article's subject worked as a freelance (what was supported my recently added content on the "Essays" section, to do some minor MOS homogenizations [18] and external-links cleanup [19]
User:Rebecca reverted (5th rtime!) all of this (and everything prior) explaining "these edits either a) don't make sense, or b) are totally unnecessary. knock it off'" [20].
In your diff "five", I'm not only undoing Rebeca's 5th revert, but adding content about the publication of a second book by the article's subject.
User:Rebecca reverted them for the 6th time, but she liked the sentence about the 2nd book, and left it on the article [21]. In her edit summary, She qualified all previous improvements as "cruft".
This edit indeed left the article with a broken reference (#6) and a reference mentioning a removed section (#4) ( see her version)
Not to mention that she lost the {{ cite web}} formatting I've added to reference #5.
At this point, I was unable to fix the article since I was already blocked for a week for "violating the 3RR rule". Hopefully, a bot fixed one of the problems with the references.
So, do you still stand that it doesn't matters what Rebecca did? Do you feel more comfortable in letting my 3RR report to be archived with the result "Submitter already blocked?"
Your's truly, -- Damiens.rf 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, Il faut arreter. Toute cette histoire te rend malade. Ici c'est comme une secte, tu dois etre gentil sinon on te casse. Tu as bien travaille, tu as ete gentil, mais tu t es enerve. C'est trop tot pour te prendre pour un maitre de l'univers avec toute puissance sur les edits des autres. Il faut gagner ce privilege. iL FAUT DEVENIR ADMIN. Et pour devenir admin, il faut lecher le cul des autres admin, avant de pouvoir niquer les autres, les newbies. Il faut pas les mordre (dont bite newbies), il faut leur dire de te faire une pipe sans te mordre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparsa? ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You have TWICE reverted my edit calling Fidel Castro 'a strongman'. In reality, in this case 'strongman' is a gross understatement. NPOV rules tend to protect people from unjust attacks. Fine. Trouble is, they also protect bastards from being called bastards. It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that there will always be a plentiful supply of self-appointed vigilantes, good-intentioned or not, who will immediately and zealously react against and revert an edit of, say, Fidel Castro's article calling him what he really is, a dictator. Also sadly, most of such vigilantes often are completely ignorant of the applicable historical facts, so we have (along the same example) an Norwegian kid, ignorant of the 20th-Century history of the Americas, reverting edits about Fidel Castro made by a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the Paredón, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good; the Norwegian youngster administering the final insult: he delivers a sermon on WP:NPOV policy, because the Cuban editor didn't supply proper "references" or "citations" about facts the whole world is well aware of. It's nauseating. Perhaps if Wikipedia was based in a country less dominated (or better, harassed) by lawyers than the USA, then saying THE TRUTH would be more important than saying just polite, tactful, NPOV-correct, mild, harmless, non-offensive, and hypocritical statements about people, or than "adequately sourcing" said truth. So, Mr. Vigilante, Fidel Castro is not only 'a strongman' (did you look at the article or not?), he is a criminal, a murderer, a ruthless Dictator, a liar, a thief, and a rotten bastard. That's the truth, not "THRUTH" as you wrote. So quit protecting the article on Cuba: you simple lack que qualifications for the task. You need a lot of further study and to do a lot of research. Perhaps a 2-year stay in Cuba itself would be best. You'd learn a lot, and be surprised a lot. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You've recently come off a week long block, and are being incautious. [23] was unhelpful and looks like stalking / trolling. Not having fully worked out what is going on, I have done nothing. But the advice you received above in french (shorn of the naughty words) is plausible William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, hello--
My name is Mike Smith, and I am currently at work on a book--a book about Wikipedia--about how Wikipedia has affected our culture, and about the wide range of people who help to make Wikipedia the social force that it is. (It will also be accompanied by an hour-long documentary.) I am attempting to contact a number of notable Wikipedia users, yourself included, in pursuit of information about the inner Wikipedia community and its members.
If you are at all interested in being interviewed for my book, drop me an e-mail at mike@mystrangenewmexico.com, with a mailing address so I can send you one of my publisher's press kits for this project. It'll give you a good overview of what sorts of questions I'll be asking, and will even includes a promotional T-shirt.
If you're not interested, that's fine as well; it's my loss. Well, it would be yours too, since you won't get to represent yourself in the book--while some of those who know you from Wikipedia will.
I hope to hear from you soon,
Sincerely,
Mike Smith Author, WIK-ED: HOW WIKIPEDIA CONQUERED, REVOLUTIONIZED, AND REDEFINED THE WORLD (Spring 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarcticsuburbs ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am fully entitled to remove disruptive comments. You are acting completely inappropriately even after you have been warned multiple times and blocked several times. Desist or you will be blocked. Ok? JRG ( talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that removing other people's comments is generally disruptive, but does it really matter what names people are being called on some forum outside of Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the deletion discussion? Why isn't the templated notice at the top of the page enough? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have any intrest in or knowledge of Anrican films, go to this wikiproject [24] and join! If you don't, then spread this around. The African Films Task force needs you, so follow the link, or spread this post, so people can join the African Films Task Force.
Please help, -- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
One more revert and you are in violation of the 3rr, which you have a long history of violating. I did not delete your comments I moved them to a different place. You did however revert them with out my comments. This subject is open for discussion in the Discussion page, please do so there rather than through reverts. -- Brendan White ( talk) 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien, do NOT vandalize that article again. I asked for comments, not outright blanking. Secondly, your rationale for blanking it is totally false. Everything is Verified "WP:V", all sources are reliable "WP:RS", any claim made in there is followed by a reference. Please use the talk page to state why you're making changes on the page. Should you blank that article again, be aware that I will begin reporting you for vandalism. Use the talk page, make your case, don't just blank again. 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Amanda Milan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Amanda Milan. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien, you have a user page consisting of a copyrighted picture (your source is Encyclopedia Britanica). You can't have a copyrighted picture on your user page, therefore it was removed. If you disagree, please file a WP:RFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon ( talk • contribs)
Licensing states its from Encyclopedia Britanica - Encyclopedia Britanica is copyrighted, as is everything in it. It's copyrighted. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain". If you have an issue with the image, then you should be the one to take it to WP:FUR instead of potentially starting an edit war on a userpage over an image the user did not upload. If the tag/WMF is wrong, then take it up in the appropriate channels.-- Smashville talk 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your points, and my response:
It's a valid page found on Google. It's now cached [29], Article # 1908 (at this time - but that may change)
Read the reference that goes along with it. It doesn't list the town name, it lists his birth place in that exact verbiage. Therefore I have to list it that way.
Are you reading the references with this, it's REFERENCED!!!
... REFERENCED info
AGAIN, referenced....read the references next time
Your POV
It's reliable
Referenced in just that way
His exact quote - read the references, please
Again, referenced quote
See above
WP:SOFIXIT
READ THE REFERENCES - it IS referenced
Your POV
Nope
Nope -- per referenced sources
Referenced....you DO see that little number next to that sentance, dont' you ;)
See above
No - per references
REFERENCED
Nope - his exact quote
Nope - per the references
Nope - per sources
Read the references with that
ARE YOU READING THE REFERENCES ON THIS - THEY'RE THERE!!!!!!
PER SOURCES
Open up an RFC on it, if that's the consensus, that by all means, refactor them. (By the way, I claim IAR on that, you get a better idea of what he's like by those quotes, and he DID retire, so what do you expect his co-workers would say ? :)
Nope - again, per sources
Per References
Your POV
Nope - again -- READ the references, it's actually direct quote
Lay off the crack, it's sourced :) (Yes, I'm being funny)
Again, it's sourced, just look
....do you see the little number at the end of the sentance....it called a reference, click on it and you can see my source.... :)
See above
RFC it, if consensus agrees, no problem
Read the comment in the source -- IAR. It improves the article. I realize this can be challenged, and if a consesus is reached that this shouldn't be here, I won't war to keep it in.
See the numbers at the bottom....... :)
-- Damiens.rf 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Damien.rf you're being difficult. You've been blocked before, please stop before you get another block. 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you refrain from further mischaracterisation of my writing: far from being a JUSTAPOLICY, I specifically gave contexts to my writing, assuming that the closing administrator and anyone else who's familiar with the deletion process would recognise which parts of the fair use criteria my answers addressed. I don't demand that you agree with me, but (here's the JUSTAPOLICY for you :-) I believe that WP:CIV requires that you WP:AGF. Nyttend ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe in probability. On the off chance it becomes popular and dozens of comments come to "defend" it, at least one of them is bound to be not-clueless. Although that would be a virtual pain in the ass to sort through... so since you asked I won't do it again.
Cheers.
-- Aeon17x ( talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As per my edit summary, the image is of a prominent Australian Politician wearing a headset for broadcast, NOT a headset for telephone or computer. The article is not about the former type of headset, not the latter - it doesn't matter how "nice" the image is, it is not an appropriate representation of the subject of the article. It is also not about the politician in question. Please try to keep the images you add to articles in-context, as I have asked you before. ABVS1936 ( talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove a provided source for an image. That you'd remove it when provided after nominating it for deletion smells of bad faith, and is not a good look. Rebecca ( talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
we both seem to be getting constantly reverted on the above article, for the record I do agree with your deletion of some of the more memorial style websites that are linked there.
I don't want to see anyone blocked over this, any suggestions on how to solve this little drama?
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Microphone Gaffe? Silly newbie, remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about containing all the important information of the world and if you think the examples cited in that article aren't important then you are very much mistaken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.213.150 ( talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Amanda_Milan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo
As someone involved, it seems like a good idea to tell you that at last we have some discussion on the talk pages of these article, and some changes (which you may or may not agree with)
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you recently proposed a bunch of "fair use" images for deletion. Unfortunately, when you added the image-deletion template to articles where the image was used, the deletion template hides the image caption. Among other things, this makes it harder to evaluate the "fair use" claims for the images. The deletion template should be inserted in the caption field; if you put a "|" in front of it, the deletion template hides the caption. I've fixed a few of these, but you are likely to be able to fix them more efficiently than I can. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The link to the discussion about Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg is not working.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij, who uploaded the photo of Whitman's mother, uses a false rationale. The photo was a crime scene photo only and never used in a court case. In fact, he probably stole it from a website I used to own. At the time I got the photo (1999), it took a FOIA document and I had to pay for all the photos. They have since been released to the Austin Library. Victor9876 ( talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenditious editing on List of violently killed transgender people, Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan, Matthew Shepherd. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a pest and are blatantly uncivil. Kindly don't send me messages if you want to call me an idiot. Ok? I did not do that deliberately and you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to berate me for it. INTGAFW ( talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to leave me alone and you are not complying with that request. Kindly do so. INTGAFW ( talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how this fails verification when even the article title verifies the statement that I changed in the photo caption. It absolutely does not fail verification. I understand you have an issue with the image itself, but there no grounds to challenge the caption, especially as I rephrased it, which is not original research. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of cooperation, I invite you to refactor this comment, as it is rather unhelpful, to say the least. Cheers. BradV 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You're edit warring at
Murder of Gwen Araujo and
Murder of Amanda Milan. Edit warring
isn't allowed because it is always harmful to the project. Please stop. Rather, use the talk page to try and build a consensus for your edits. Thanks for understanding.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the only way. Thanks again. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Damien, I added to the tags the source for the photos - The Austin Historical Library. All of the Agencies, Federal and State worked on the information. A lot of them are co-mingled and have no mention of which or whom. There shouldn't be a problem and if there should be, a cease and desist order is easy (and recommended) to follow. Please withdraw the tags on the images. Thanks! Victor9876 ( talk) 06:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever actually add anything to wikipedia? It is clear that you enjoy tagging dozens of images for deletion daily, or templating articles ... but do you ever add any content to the overall project? Or do you merely enjoy harassing others with your tendentious drive-by requests? I can list at least 15 editors who you have edit-warred with in the last month or so and probably that many who have stated that you were harassing them or trolling. Please rethink your behavior and overall motivation for your actions ... and consider putting forth your efforts to add to this great endeavor, instead of merely subtracting from it. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.
— WP:QUOTE
Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time I am going to request that you quit the immature pestering. Your recent revert of my edit at Bay of Pigs was non-sensical as the link itself is set up incorrectly (hence why I removed it). It is clear that you are following my edits as a means of harassment. You already violated 3RR yesterday against me and have been blocked twice recently for your behavior. I have heard from at least 5 other editors who accuse you of harassment, and if you commit any such behavior after this, I will not only see to it that you are requested for a comment, but I will also organize all of those editors that you have harassed and see to it that you are banned. Your behavior is unacceptable. I have been more than reasonable in responding to your tendentious templating (ref'ing every single time you have requested it, including trying to respond to your concerns on quotes etc). You are acting like a petty child ... and this is my last warning to you to rethink your actions and correct them. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
At Che Guevara (photo). Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
EdJohnston stated that his "attempt at negotiation went nowhere" and "both users (...) gave any hint of willingness to compromise, or pursue WP:DR". Actually, when EdJohnston's suggested a RFC, I promptly agreed. I have refrained from further reverting when I noticed the other user was willing to ignore 3RR. And the whole point of the dispute was to use a tag that would attract more users to discuss the contents of a article owned by one user (specifically, discuss either it's adequate to have 61 quotations in the article). I'm completly for DR here! I even [ the help of other user], to avoid touching the owned article.
Decline reason:
That does not change that you and Redthoreau were edit warring up until your blocks, which were therefore appropriate. — Sandstein 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Damiens.rf. Since you didn't mention an RFC in that sentence, I didn't know that's what you meant. If you will consider an WP:RFC, can you please draft up the text, here on your Talk page, of the issue that you would present for other editors to comment on? The question should be neutrally phrased. Also, I'd like to be assured that you have a plan for avoiding conflict with RedThoreau in the future. Can you say if you have any ideas for doing that. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I non-administratively closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg because the image is no longer in use. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making bogus edit sumaries on the removal of sourced content as you did on Eye Color your reason has no validity, please do not remove photo again it could be considered vandalism if done again thank you-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a short friendly reminder (in case you forgot) about a question that I asked you on Talk:Che Guevara (photo)#Quote issue. Thanks and take your time. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that I have your attention.....three out of the four changes you made to that article have been reverted because they're bullshit changes. I've warned you before about trolling on that page, try it again and I'll push for a topic ban.
You tagged for sources where sources already existed at least three times. (All have been reverted)
The only change left standing is the change you made to the lead sentance regarding Dwight Lauderdale's LASIK surgery. I don't have any reason to change it, I think it sucks, of course, but I have no grounds to change it because I think it sucks. Bottom line, stay off the Dwight Lauderdale page, because you contribute nothing to the project!
KoshVorlon
> rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Re. History of painting and Western painting: this issue is acknowledged and being addressed in these and other articles, initially Color Field. See article talk page and also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Participation is welcome to work through the text and images properly. Ty 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
......I just reverted you AGAIN'. I will continue to revert any trolling you do on the Dwight Lauderdale article. The item you keep tagging as OR is, in fact supported by the source at the end of the article and therefore is NOT OR. The phrase you keep changing is ALSO supported by the referenced article. I don't give a fat rat's ass if you don't like it, it's supported by references and it will STAY IN. You, on the other hand, can STAY OUT of the article. You have contributed absolutely ZERO to the article and are actually HINDERING not helping the article. Make yourself useful and write an article instead! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your two faces are clearly showing. Your behaviour has already landed you in hot water in the past, reverting someone's own userpage edit is NOT on by any stretch. Timeshift ( talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No reply? I expected as much. Timeshift ( talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to
Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [ [30]] regarding Disussion of topic ban. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --— Kosh jumpgate 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't happen to be able to use IRC, do you? I'd kind of like to discuss this with you, but it might drag on if I keep on posting to your talk. If you can, please meet me in ##neurolysis. Thanks. — neuro (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to
Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Damiens, I have no problem building an encyclopedia, in fact, this article has undergone many changes since I first posted it. All of which have gone through without any problems from me (even when I've disagreed with them! :) ). Your edits, however, involve removal of referenced data, which is not supported by policy, that's why I keep reverting you. As the data itself is referenced by the article, in fact, word-for-word, it's inclusion is per policy. I am currently discussing this issue with Nishkid64 as well (not about your edits, but simply about the material itself). Thanks — Kosh Jumpgate 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with the subject of this article, even keeping in mind your clashes with her on the article talk page. Nonetheless, your continued antics on this page - most recently moving a clearly verifiable and notable publication for no apparent reason - is inappropriate. Rebecca ( talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm aware you've had disputes with User:Rebecca in the past but this is unnecessary given she's left Wikipedia. At best it only prolongs ill feeling over a past disagreement. Would you consider amending your goodbye message to something more neutral? Euryalus ( talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Damiens.rf,
i can not understand the reasons you give for your edits. The investigation by Heerfordt is exactly about Searl and his SEG, so i can not see how you can declare that as "unrelated". You might not like it's critical content, but still is about the Searl and his SEG.
The YouTube video simply shows what was printed in the newspapers. Feel free and request an archive copy to read it for yourself. To save other that work, the video should be seen as a courtesy. There are many more WP articles that refer to YT clips. So i really don't see what your point is, other than you might be uncomfortable with their critical content towards Searl.
Following your reasoning for the edits, both articles have to be deleted completely. After all, it could be considered pure self-promotion by Searl, and nothing of what is given as sources is really verifyable at all, let alone his claims to start with. The article is quite controversial, and it is purely pseudoscientific. This very nature makes it questionable. Therefore, any sources about the topic can be considered. Searl himself even acknowledges the very existence of Heerfordt, for example, so it really is related.
I'm going to revert your edits again now. Please discuss your proposed edits on the talk pages of the articles so that we can reach some consensus about them, before simply reverting it.
Greetings,
Chris -- 213.160.11.146 ( talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens,
I want to give you a heads-up that I reverted the List of programmers change because it wiped out a large chunk of computing history with regard to their contributions. While I agree that there were a number of red links, several significant programmers removed, including computer language inventors, important OS developers, and one of the two main developers of the WWW. Probably the links (brackets) should be removed, rather than the entries themselves.
kind regards, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 10:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Once is a bit edgy. Twice is too pointy. Please don't edit war over this, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I reverted a number of changes that you made to Feministing last night, trying to edit to appease your many legitimate points. (See more about why and how I restored certain edits on Feministing's talk page.) I reverted a lot of the edits because you deleted a couple of reliable sources that are important to establishing the subject's notability, particularly since the page was just created. I have a number of new sources that I plan on adding when I have a little more spare time, so please give me an opportunity (say, until the end of business today) to add these sources and expand the article appropriately before you bring your much-needed perspective to the article. :) I genuinely appreciate your help in making this article rigorous and solid. Thanks! RMJ ( talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Damiens, I'm looking for the AfD of Shanti Carson, but I can't find the page. Could you check the link? Regards, Baileypalblue ( talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_28#GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg was completly based on head counting. There's nothing on those "arguments" that exaplain why do we need to see that (notable) old-woman-on-a-wheelchair besides Senior Bush to understand the articles using that image. You should never use votes for establishing WP:NFCC#8 compliance. (Am I being an insensitive clod in referring her as the old-woman-on-a-wheelchair? Yes, but so should be anyone willing to apply WP:NFCC#8). -- Damiens.rf 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a baseless assertion putting words into my mouth. I do not close any discussion based on a headcount (see this example) and you are twisting things to assert I have. It is a discussion. You asserted the image failed NFCC#8 and two others refuted this in a way that I saw a relevant. Had others re-refuted their discussions we may have ended up as delete but it is never a head count - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit that I reverted was an attempt to invoke (inappropriately, in my opinion) WP:BURDEN in a content dispute over WP:NFCC. I have started a talk page discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, if you would like to contribute substantively to a discussion on the applicability of WP:BURDEN to things that (ostensibly) have nothing to do with verifiability. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
When making a report, it's considered a courtesy to inform those involved. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit [32]. It seems very likely to me that the dust jacket shown was glossy, i.e., shiny instead of matte. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You are engaged in edit-warring on the intelligent design article. This is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Edit war. You have engaged in multiple reverts on several occasions; please be advised that the three-revert rule is an absolute boundary, not an entitlement. In addition, it does not appear that you have contributed to the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design. You should seek to resolve your content dispute through discussion, not through edit warring. In addition, regarding this post to ANI, please read, and try to abide by, this behavioural guideline: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Guettarda ( talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
intelligent design. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Guettarda (
talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I am a either a little bit thick or confused (likely both, as I have yet to get my second cuppa), but I was unsure of your meaning. You are tagging the image for removal because it is from a news source? Many of our images are. I understand that if we could have a free image of a late federal judge leaving the armed compound of Native American protesters, we would use that, but no such image would appear to exist. As the image is discussed and described in the text of the article in which it is being used, how is it in violation of the NFCC? I look forward to hearing from you prior to proceeding. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've had done just 2 reverts (out of 10 edits) in the aforementioned article in the last 24hours prior to the blocking, and the article was already protected when I was blocked.
Decline reason:
Your second point is irrelevant. To your first point, I would consider you to have been disruptive, based on this and edit summaries like this and this. — Daniel Case ( talk) 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Damiens.rf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your support for the block is not based on the blocking reasons. The edit-summaries on the diffs you provide are not blockable offenses by any measure. And of course my "second point" is relevant. If I'm blocked for "edit warring" (not 3rr) in an article after the article is fully-protected, then the block is punitive rather than preventive. The block is not preventing me to "edit war". It's actually only preventing me to engage in the ongoing talk page discussion
Decline reason:
I consider your edits disruptive and your conduct blockable. The blocking admins' failure to select an appropriate block reason does not bar the admin reviewing the unblock request from concluding that the editor was blocked appropriately. I think this is explained at WP:GAB somewhere. — Daniel Case ( talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This image has been marked as "White House photograph 1996" and has been identified as a work of the federal government. It sure looks like an official White House photo to me, the sort of thing that would be taken by the official photographer when someone visits the President. What source information do you think is missing here? I'm removing your speedy deletion tag pending a better articulation from you of what the issue is. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Your most recent FFD nomination seems to be malformed. You didn't include the image name. Stifle ( talk) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you feel they are too small, I do have a picture with bigger ones too. =) JIP | Talk 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I am relatively inexperienced in editing Wikipedia and conducting myself in debates, so I want to apologize in advance for a recent error in judgment on my part by engaging in meat puppeteering with some Internet friends on the deletion debate surrounding Samhita Mukhopadhyay. Since this is clearly inappropriate and reflects an immature understanding of Wikipedia standards on my part, I'm going to discontinue my contribution to the debate, make note of my mistakes on the debate page, and take a break from heavy editing while I review Wikipedia standards more closely. Is this appropriate? What else can I do to rectify this situation?
I hope you will take this sincere apology in good faith. This has been a learning experience, and I appreciate your civility and help. Thanks. RMJ ( talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Damien, if the news media cover the Washington protest for Sean Goldman in regards to the relations of Brazil and the US, then how can YOU judge that it is not relevant to the overall relations between the US and Brazil. Afterall, this topic was discussed by Obama and Lula in their meeting Saturday, as the media noted, so it is relevant to them, and to the two country's relations, isn't it? You know that Hillary Clinton also discussed Sean Goldman with Brazil's leaders weeks ago. Why is your view of priorities stand over Lula and Obama's priorities at the meeting? Also, when you stoop down and say "Get a life," why is it that you personally verbally abuse Wikipedia volunteers. Do you need a vacation from your volunteer tasks? Perhaps it is you who needs to hear your own "Get a life" statement?
24.148.73.133 ( talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph
Damien Excuse me, but recentism does not address your "Get a life" statement to me. I expect an apology if you are capable of one. Your comment was totally unnecssary if you are an adult.
24.148.73.133 ( talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph
Please stop removing content from this. You may have a POV about Erin McKean; I do not. I added this as an interesting aspect of the topic. Just leave it alone, please. PamD ( talk) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Quinion source - I'm sorry you didn't notice that I specified the issue of the Newsletter to which I was referring. The site appears to use frames so that there isn't a URL specific to issue 596, but you can locate it by following obvious links from the home page. I'm also sorry that what appears to be a WP:POV attitude to Ms McKean is leading you to attack a harmless little article like this, while WikiPedia abounds in unsourced badly-written rubbish on a wide range of topics. Ah well, that's Wikipedia. I guess I have been lucky hitherto to avoid unpleasantness of this kind. PamD ( talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Damiens.rf Just a quick request regarding the image which was deleted from the file File:John-Serry-Sr.gif which was deleted from the infobox on the article John Serry, Sr.. If possible kindly arrange for the administrator/editor to undelete this image for fair use as a copyrighted historical photo of a noteworthy musician. I failed to explain during the debate that the image should be tagged for fair use in the article John Serry, Sr. since it:
I appologize for not including these remarks during the deletion review--alas I am totally unfamiliar with the deletion process and not very adept at editing articles. If possible- kindly arrange for a restoration of the image found in the deleted file. If this is no longer possible, would you be able to post an Image Undelete request for me?? I am not certain how to propose such an action. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely pjs012915-- Pjs012915 ( talk) 15:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Dear Damiens.rf - Thank you once again for your insights. Again I must apologize for my ignorance regarding copyright issues and the policies which Wikipedia utilizes in order to regulate images which are presented in the encyclopedia. Alas, I am quite ignorant of the technical issues involved. If possible, kindly reconsider the decision to delete the photograph in light of the following thoughts:
this musician's image was published in A Pictorial History of Radio (See John Serry, Sr. references) which documents images of noted performers in the history of radio. While the deleted image is not identical to those cited above, it is significant in that it portrays the same historical figure in his professional capacity. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo (depicting the use of the accordion by the musician as a legitimate orchestral instrument) and its historical significance (in the sense that few musicians of that era attempted to utilize the instrument in this fashion --See Accordion (Use in classical music)) are the object of discussion in the parent article John Serry, Sr.. As such it is both illustrative and educational and serves as a valuabe enhancement to the article.
Thanks again for your insights. I hope that this helps to clarify my thoughts for the benefit of the editors. Sorry that I cannot be of much more assistance. I appreciate your efforts to salvage the image for the benefit of future students of the instrument. Thanks again. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) pjs012915
Having read the guidelines for the WP:BLP I see that information is meant to be unbiased and factual. I feel that you are inflicting a bias by deleting and rewording based on your opinions in the Nikol Hasler article. There is no need to threaten that I am in any violation of terms. As you ask for citations, it is being clarified that either the citation exists or your opinion based changes, such as "this person is not known" are being removed. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The onus is still yours to prove she's an "Internet Personality" and that she is "known".--Damiens.rf 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Assistance, please. If it is your desire to make all of Wiki better in reference of public pools of knowledge, how would you define someone as known and reference it? Given the amount of information available in any search regarding this person, it is not difficult to see that "internet personality" is fitting. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, sir, you are demanding that every bit of information have a reference. What prompted a reference of the person's biographical location to be deleted? BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This information is publicly known and the person speaks about her children as part of her public speaking with teens. The information is given by the person in her biography on her own column. Many BLPs list location and family. BeforeSwine ( talk)
In the article you insisted did not have the information about Hasler's foster care time, I found this: "As a foster child in an unstable home, Hasler became sexually active at 11. After receiving a scholarship to Southern Illinois University, she had to drop out to care for her baby. A single mom, she moved from a homeless shelter to a series of people's couches.
Now married in Waukesha and determined to raise her three children differently, Hasler said she's discussed sex with her kids since they were old enough to ask questions."
I have also provided more external links to help with proof that the person is "known". I don't wish to be combative, merely to become a better wikipedian. If you have done this for some amount of time, I am sure you can understand that there is a level of frustration at trying to enter information in the proper format while having others just delete everything entered, even if it is referenced. BeforeSwine ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC).
Stop stalking me and attempting to delete every image I upload or edit. PRODUCER ( talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
you removed a portrait of Robert Brackman from the Robert Brackman article? Carptrash ( talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please not that I have undone your redirect tag on this article. In the future kindly do not delete the article's entire contents with a simple redirect tag. The results of the deletion review process clearly indicate that contents from the article should be merged into the parent article John Serry Sr. It is clearly not appropriate to simply eliminate the contents of American Rhapsody entirely while failing to retain any description of the composition within the parent article. I have notified an administrator of your attempt to expunge the entire article in this manner and requested that he monitor your actions in this regard. Kindly refrain from taking such drastic action until a proper attempt can be made to merge the contents into the parent article. -- Pjs012915 ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC) User:pjs012915
Please see User_talk:John#File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg. J Milburn ( talk) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens, I reverted (part of) your edit at The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach--that there was nothing else to report is the essence of what in Dutch is called the "cucumber time," and it's found in the source: "Vanwege de komkommertijd gedurende de zomermaanden (dat was ruim 100 jaar geleden dus ook al) pakte de landelijke pers groot uit met het filmschandaal in Zandvoort." Your removal of the wikilink to silly season, that's fine with me. Drmies ( talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Violence against LGBT people. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. -
ALLST✰R▼
echo
wuz here @ 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are arguing for the image's deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, there's no point in screwing around with the rationales simultaneously and removing them from articles. Discuss at FfD and leave it there. One central place of discussion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
read the source in question? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption. Also note that the previous WP:AN3 report may lead to action if any more reverts occur at Violence against LGBT people regarding the image. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Damiens, yes I reverted "that" image again. It's copyrighted by Encyclopedia Britanica, and therefore cannot be on a user page.
Per their own page:
Ownership: The content on the Services is the property of Britannica, its affiliated companies or licensors and is protected by international copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
Just a heads up —
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) shit! forgot to sign
--
Courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
The reason people remove or hide the discussions from the intelligent design talk page is because it gets a lot of trolling from people who want to portray it as something meritorious, somehow science-based, and for general soapboxing. Hiding the text or removing it from the page discourages engaging with such editors (which long and bitter experience has shown often have minimal appreciation for wikipedia's policies and biology in general, and virtually never have anything substantive and appropriate to add) and in the long term simply saves time. If you feel there is actual merit to the points established, perhaps bring them up in a separate section. The actual comments I see as lacking any merit - the citations are to intelligent design advocates (whose claims have been thoroughly debunked), the claims are also to basic issues long since dealt with (abiogenesis and evolution are separate, unconnected ideas), Darwin's black box is also useless as a citation in a serious page, and anything that takes intelligent design seriously from a non-critical perspective is pretty much bunk. You are also verging on a three revert violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I realize you're probably busy going down the List of fictional supercouples in an image deleting spree, but do you think you can answer a quick question for me. Why are you choosing File:Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg for deletion but not the one at the top of that article. They serve the same purpose in giving a visual depiction of the actors portraying the characters. I might understand if both images were of the same actors, but I added the second one to show Leon in the role as part of the fictional pairing. Rocksey ( talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to go after most, if not all, of the images I have uploaded? Most of those images are perfectly valid regarding fictional characters. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You placed a {sources} tag on an article with nine cited sources; this confuses me. I removed the tag, as it doesn't appear to have a clear purpose on that article. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume I created it for a good reason, but since the page it redirects to has been deleted, I can't tell you why. So I have no objection to it being deleted also. -- Jameboy ( talk) 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
For excellent nominations at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, pointing out that WP:NFCC is not optional. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hi. Thanks for the barnstar. But I believe this closing was a mistake (it's not one of my nominations). Associated Press would be interested in licensing this image for us. We can't claim fair use on it. Fair use does not mean "using for free instead of paying". Our use is not transformative, we're using the image for the very same purpose as USA Today, for instance, and they paid AP for that use. Please, reconsider. This is pretty much a clear cut case around here. See this recent well put argument, for instance. -- Damiens.rf 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since whetn are magazine covers not fair use? What makes you an expert? Mrdthree ( talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version of this image, which is now entirely my own work. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
May I ask the reason why you listed this for deletion, and what source information you are missing here. The image is correctly identified as coming from the National Archive (I cross-checked) with the archive number; and it's tagged as public-domain government work, which seems also correct. So please tell me which additional information you'd like to see. Averell ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, if you are not already aware, that I have taken your advice about looking through my image contributions and weeding out images that really are not needed. I have just done that with the Josh Madden article, and also did it with a few other articles some days ago. I am definitely seeing things more through your eyes now on how useless some of these images are. Of course, there are some images I have disagreed with you on and will disagree with you on, but I am now more open to images that are seemingly only decorative being deleted. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I agree that we should delete AP images, but comments like this do not help. – Quadell ( talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your issues at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 9 and explained why I still believe the image is fair use. A short time later, eight images I had uploaded at various times over a span of a few years and used in eight different articles were all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 12 within a span of five minutes. I cannot understand why you would take a sudden interest in images I have uploaded other than based on our prior interaction. I would appreciate an explanation for your actions in nominating these images, which would appear to present issues of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Alansohn ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you've been discussed here on ANI. – Quadell ( talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling a summit on LGBT rights "pompous" isn't very helpful. "Mississippi State LGBT Summit", best that I can figure, was a summit on LGBT rights, differences, and the like for people in the State of Mississippi. Pretty straight forward. Oh and the "2005 Saint-Etienne Rogue-Dreamers Victims Summit", good for you for presiding over it. I presided over the "2000 Virginia State Disablities Conference", doesn't make me or it "pompous". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You know that your conduct at Equality Mississippi has been widely criticized, by many people who say that, although the article has issues that need addressing, your methods are problematic and come off as hostile and bordering on harassment... and you still choose an insulting edit summary? I posted on the talk page to try to come to consensus rather than battling with other users- I am not, all by myself, consensus. I'm so irritated with you right now that I have no inclination to help further. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
From reading the discussions at ANI, it appears to me that there is a strong possibility that you may be blocked or even banned due to your interactions with Allstarecho. I sense that you are only trying to do what you believe is correct, but the way in which you are doing it seems to be overly aggressive and too focused on one editor. I do not know why no one else has attempted to discuss this with you, or why you are not participating at ANI. If you care about being blocked or banned, I suggest that you immediately stop editing articles related to Allstarecho, try to be more careful how you phrase your discussions on the talk pages (especially if English is not your first language), and explain your intentions at the ANI discussions. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you have been the victim of an unjust block at Wiki pt (Portuguese), as our policy allows the kind of images you were uploading, even if part of the community is against them. I've appealed on that block and it has been removed, please check if you are still blocked. I advise you, however, not to engage in reversions but rather discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Best regards, -- Darwinius ( talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The attribution given at that page is quite common for releases via OTRS and well in keeping with the body of attribution templates stored Category:Attribution templates. While public domain sources do not require attribution, sources under most free licenses do. While I am personally of the opinion that the attribution template is not strictly necessary in this case, the copyright holder disagrees. Noting the verbatim duplication of copyrighted text taken from other sources is standard and there is no good reason to remove this notice. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at your contribution history and I would like to thank you on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad for working this hard to wipe out any signs of opposition to the current regime of Iran.-- Breathing Dead ( talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.
This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.
please review the article V (programming language)
Hi there, thanks for informing me about the copyright information required for the photos I uploaded as a gallery on the Camel Trophy page. I have the required information (website links) How do I add this information to the pictures? I appreciate that you directed me to the media copyright page for questions but this isn't particularly helpful. Thanks for your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper ( talk • contribs)
I took the images from a Camel trophy website. I now that currently they will not be allowed here but I have contacted the Camel Trophy site webmaster for permission. If permission is granted can I then upload the photos? Thanks for your help and advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper ( talk • contribs)
In this diff you write "this article is about a murder, not a murder victim", and the next day in this diff you write " the Murder of Michael Causer is not a murder article". Perhaps you could explain your reasoning to me? I happen to think that the article is about Michael Causer and about the murder. -- Law Lord ( talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Damiens, could you please start using the talk pages to discuss your concerns with the Iranian election related articles? This back and forth using edit summaries is getting a bit ridiculous... thanks.
—
Ω (
talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Then please explain why I cant have this? Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 8#File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg. Happens everytime, no one will reply to my query for a week and the file is deleted unanswered. How am I supposed to learn then? Suede67 ( talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently (and correctly) deleted the controversy section from the article Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century. There was an IP user who refused to stop changing the order of Man O'War and Secretariat. I only got them to stop, when I encouraged them to add a controversy section. I also warned them at the time that the content they provided was not adequately sourced and that sooner or later someone would remove the content. Well, here we are. The deed is done. I would appreciate your help watching the article. imars ( talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
While we're on the issue of discussing the legitimate use of magazine covers in articles, would this qualify as unnecessary? Should it be nominated for deletion? Thanks. Brian Reading ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. In situations like this you might consider using this template.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have hoped that, with an intro on your talk page such as you have, you would maintain a cool head. But subtly-veiled insults like this aren't cool. Nobody likes biting summaries. Seriously. Even one word can be quite hurtful.
Please be sure to be considerate in the future. I know that you may feel exasperated, but treating other editors like trash isn't the answer. Thank you, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
As for "WhisperToMe you're completly mistaken in your lack of dedication to the project mission... and If you think this is unreasonable, please go argue with this Wales guy or go contribute to some other project, thank you good bye." - I feel that I am very much dedicated to the project mission. Why not rephrase things like saying "XXX, It's absolutely possible to produce a free image of a dead person: You just talk to some photographer owing a photo (taken preferably before the subject's death) and ask him to release the photo under a free licensing." - That way you cut to the point and are not questioning other people's dedication.
The first step of deletion review is talking to the closing administrator- asking them to reconsider and offering your reasons. Note that deletion review is not just a "second go" at deletion- instead, it is for when a closure has been made incorrectly. As such, you would have to focus on how the primary argument was not responded to- no one offered an explanation of why the image was actually needed, they only discussed the importance of the campaign, and why it was irreplaceable; neither of which featured in the nomination statement. J Milburn ( talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your removal of Murder of Michael Causer from the Murders category. To me that removal seems completely without merit. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? -- Law Lord ( talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I restored the image File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Previously, I deleted the image after J Milburn's nagging because the discussion was pretty clear. Currently, there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, so we should keep such images on hold until the discussion concludes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm personally a little sceptical of the whole process at the moment (and feel some of King's actions a little odd- there have been/are discussions about that) but your nomination looks more than sound. It would appear that the vast majority of arguments in the deletion debate were completely invalid. If the close is upheld at this deletion review, I think that really will be the nail in the coffin of my faith in the FfD process. J Milburn ( talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Damiens: The speedy tags are not valid. Please don't game the system. The image was orphaned because it was deleted, and so it cannot be deleted because it is orphaned; that would be circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make
personal attacks on other people, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG was moved to Commons and therefore speedily deleted at Wikipedia without discussion. Then, commons:File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG to see it was dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Damiens.rf&action=edit§ion=5eleted at Commons after discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG. I was the photographer. You were the nominator for this discussion. Is it possible that the image might be viable on WP under Fair use. The file had been at use in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency as shown by this edit-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reuploaded. Can you tell if I had cropped the prior version that was deleted.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirects go to WP:RFD, not MFD. Also, there wasn't really a reason to nominate this for deletion anyway; since the target is also at MFD, the best solution is to hold out and wait for the discussion on the target to end first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you mean well however that anon has been baiting editors across multiple pages and talkpages and user talkpages for a while. Their "concerns" about content are masked personal attacks against many editors so we try not to encourage them. If they are unable to work collaboratively then likely this is not a great match for their interests. Their "content concern" were addressed already and seemed to be inflated in the first place. Labeling my edits as vandalism is rather insulting but I trust you meant well. If you look at the edits and the source you likely will see there is no plagarism or copyvio as claimed. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 3 hours for this. That was highly inappropo, you opened the ifd yourself, rv'd the close, which was a clear keep, and made a personal attack in the edit summary. A calmly worded DRV would have been the proper course of action. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other editors of self-promotion without proof as you did at this redirect for discussion entry. This is especially true if you have not taken the time to verify your claim that "Six Sigma Pricing" is a non-notable term. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and it should be respected. Failure to do so is detrimental to the project and an extremely selfish way to act towards other editors. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding editor conduct before continuing to contribute further. Thank you. 141.214.37.134 ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
User talk:Rlevse. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
MBisanz
talk 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Re this, you are way out of line here. Knock it off. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)