![]() | 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. |
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for taking a stand against vandalism and edit blocking User:Mindbunny. THANK YOU!! Bped1985 ( talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
Yes, alas I didn't have a barnstar at the ready for that one. So you got an Anti-Vandalism barnstar :D. Speaking of which, thats quite the war going on at Mindbunny's talk page. And I kind of want to know if I had done everything right? I was one of the RC patrollers he speaks so highly of. I joined in kind of late in the game so didn't really engage in the full-out edit war. Thanks!
Ah, well now I know! Thank you! Bped1985 ( talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to understand SL copy right laws. From my understanding This is usable in Wikipedia. Is my understanding correct ? Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
PD-Sri Lanka}}
. If it had constructed within the previous 50 years (for pseudoanonymous/anonymous works) or within 50 years of the death of the author, then the image would have to be deleted on commons as a violation of the artwork (i.e., the building). However, in the US we don't recognize
freedom of panorama on buildings, so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia. That's my take, but I might have missed something; I suggest opening a thread on
commons:Commons talk:Licensing.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia for fair use but not in commons. Now I understand. Kanatonian ( talk)
Then what do I have to do to this file to make it legit ? Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK but from my understading is that that is needed only in Commons but in English Wikipedia we do not recognize freedom of panorama. This is a Wikipedia file not the commons one. Kanatonian ( talk) 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog, not sure what you were trying to do with Mfwitten ( talk · contribs), but it wasn't the right thing. Wikipedia:Block#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_username_change only applies if the user has retired one username and started editing under a different name under Wikipedia:Clean start. It's not used for tagging socks - that's what sock templates are for. If you ever have occasion to use it for an editor that has made a clean start, you must not record the old username in the block log entry. In this case, it's made worse because it now seems unlikely that Mfwitten is connected to ActuallyRationalThinker - the CU evidence is more equivocal than appeared at first sight, and there's no behavioural tie up at all.
This means that there's no evidence of ActuallyRationalThinker operating socks, so I have had to unblock him - although I've warned him that it's not a free pass if he keeps up the aggressive editing. Incidentally, you need to be careful about this good hand/bad hand thing. If a disruptive editor keeps well behaved personae to argue on his behalf, or carry out more subtle disruptions, that's good hand/bad hand. If an editor creates an alternate account to edit in a different area, say to edit on a topic he'd rather not associate his main account with, that's a legitimate use of an alternate account, and only becomes an issue if one of the accounts gets blocked for something else. At that point, he should treat both accounts as blocked, and must not use one account to lobby on behalf of the other. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog, I'm telling you what the policy says, because if you don't get it right, someone is going to drag you before Arbcom and ask that you be desysopped.
Even if the ART and Mfwitten accounts are connected, Mfwitten is not a cleanstart of ART. Apart from anything else the Mfwitten account has been around longer than the ART account. Think about it. Therefore there is no way the policy can apply to them. I share your frustration with checkusers, but even if they had been 100% bang on right and Mfwitten had been caught red handed, it would still have been against policy to mark the blocklog in the way that you did.
I am concerned that you still haven't grasped what the policy says.
Magog, you don't grasp it at all. There is simply no policy which allows you to do what you did with respect to the block log. None. Nada. Admins are required to adhere to policy in this kind of action which leaves a permanent record, and your continued refusal to recognise this is deeply concerning. If you want to indicate that one account is a sock of another, use sock tags on the talk and userpages. Don't mark the block log like this. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition, Mfwitten hasn't done anything wrong. The SPI was because it was thought ART and Drealgrin were the same person, editing the same article at the same time, to votestack. Mfwitten has never edited any article on male genitalia ever. What on earth offence has he committed that would warrant any kind of a block. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog, the policy isn't written for sockpuppetry at all. when you cleanstart you RETIRE one account and edit with a different one. That ISN'T SOCKPUPPETRY. In addition, operating two accounts, even if you don't acknowledge them, ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES. You weren't told he likely did anything wrong, you were told he was likely the same editor. That ISN'T THE SAME THING. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I think the initial point here was that block logs shouldn't be used for making notations and there are a variety of sockpuppet templates for user/usertalk pages that are used for this particular purpose. Have you had a chance to take a look at those and see how they're usually used? Shell babelfish 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, did you misunderstand me or not when it came to those edits? Don't want to be doing anything wrong. Egg Centric ( talk) 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok cool. BTW where I went to uni there were very nearby the gog magog hills... you didn't do the same by any chance? Egg Centric ( talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Do ya see yourself more as a gog or a magog? Magog one assumes ;) 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Runs away* Egg Centric ( talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you've eliminated some duplicates of images I've submitted to the commons. That's good, but there are still others I'm waiting for. These include five in Category:Images of Orange County, New York, four in Category:Images of Rockland County, New York, one in Category:Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District images, two in Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana, and one in Category:Images of Valparaiso, Indiana, and perhaps some I can't think of right now. Can you delete these soon? ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you were involved on at least two levels, I'd like to ask why LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk · contribs) is allowed to keep an enemies list at " Anti-LAEC anon editors"-- specifically, listing my name without further justification. I have asked him to remove my name [1] but he refuses, rejects request to provide diffs, and repeats old arguments. - PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I won't bother you again about it. I'll just ask another admin for some advice on how to proceed since I don't think it's fair to allow the list to stand. - PrBeacon (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the list. It's not so much that I was mad or offended -- I can disagree with an editor without taking it personally. - PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you would be willing to create a map for the footprint of Planned Parenthood health center locations.. I think it would be a very good addition to the article under facilities, what do you think? W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sweet. If you get a chance, I think it would also be very interesting to have a footprint of the two major CPC chains for the crisis pregnancy center article but I'm not sure how much time making the maps take so I'm loath to ask for more. :) W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, please do not feel obligated to make a map. I think it would be a nice addition to the article but if you are not comfortable I would hate to impose. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you though, I am a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood and their work and think that the anti-abortion groups attacking them are much more sleazy. W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me why this was deleted? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have troubled you about this. Just been checking my download log and now see the file name has been changed. :) -- Rskp ( talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Bellgrove_rail_crash
The image for this page was apparently deleted, is there a way to track down who deleted it so it can be discussed.
Thanks-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks!-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog-- Just to explain what User:Valfontis recently told you in an edit summary, regarding what's been going on here, the blanking was not vandalism on my part (I would never do that). Rather, it was cleanup of {{ WikiProject Oregon}} on Wikipedia file talk pages corresponding to images on Commons that I was told to do here. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it was your intention, but your changes broke some transclusions, like here. Notice the {{{1}}} after the icon. Just FYI. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanx We all want the headache to be reduced The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You need to be aware of this post by WMO. I deleted as an NPA, but this was after he started editing after he came back from his 48 hour block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I have emailed his mentor, User:Kubigula, but WMO hasn't been responding to his emails, so I am not sure what good Kubigula can do at this point. I am beginning to think that WMO is a lost cause. He doesn't seem to be responding to mentoring or admins telling him to back off, blocks don't seem to be giving him the "slap up side the head" to get him back on track. I really don't know what more we can do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a freeware game program, as was File:ChuShogiBrd.gif before it was deleted. (I've restored it for now.) They do not compromise the integrity of the software, and wouldn't make any difference even if it were for profit. Are such things really not allowed any more? — kwami ( talk) 07:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I even have that hard drive any more. I'll take a look. — kwami ( talk) 09:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Magog, I had indicated the source of the 'File:Abrar Husain.jpg' as Abid Husain, when I first uploaded the file. Mr. Abid Husain is the son of the late Major General Abrar Husain and the owner of the painting. The digital copy of the painting was provided to me by him on my request as I am the Regimental Historian and Archivist of the Baloch Regiment to which the late General belonged. As such, I have full authority to release the image in public domain. Furthermore, the picture was uploaded with Mr. Abid Husain's knowledge and permission, when I created the page 'Abrar Husain'. I have now added the information on file's description page. I hope that would meet your requirements. Regards, Beloochee ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011. (UTC)
It appears numerous editors found User:Bobthefish2 to be disruptive and an offender of WP:CIVIL. If he proves to be a menace to the Senkaku Islands article, my position is that we would certainly benefit from his removal from the page as per User:John Smith's suggestion. Since you have some past experiences with the Senkaku Islands issues, you may be interested in the recently opened RFC on his misbehaviour. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
What? WP has such a convoluted system.
By the way, I do appreciate your response. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't expecting you to speak in my favour. I just thought I'd like to give the accuser the best shot at what he wants to accomplish before making my own move. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2
In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.
I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:
WP:AGF is drained of meaning by
WP:POKING
WP:BAITING -- see context
here +
here which justifies
zero tolerance.
This makes me sad. I didn't understand.-- Tenmei ( talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In this context of regret for what I have not done, the focal point shifts away from me and my words to WP:BAITING and to what can be done to mitigate our problem. This mildly-phrased, open-ended optional comment seems to be the least I can do. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre -- Consider this: Wikiquote explains here that the following is misattributed --
I learned these word as a Helen Keller quotation, and I think of her each time I read them.
It is very small, but I can say "no."
No -- my intended objective of "zero tolerance" for WP:BAITING requires that I rebut Bobthefish2's marginalizing words above.
I don't have to be a Nobel laureate in literature to explain that mentioning Gibralter was
"poking",
baiting,
"in your face". At the same time, I acknowledge that
Bobthefish2 is much better at wiki-victim/blame games than I understand. I admit that I don't handle this well enough, but silence only causes the problem to grow. I tried to understand as
John Smith's exchanges with
Bobthefish2 developed since October. These are
lessons learned the hard way.
In practical terms, this is about harassment and bullying. I can't do much to avert this problem, but I can give it a name.
In real world terms, I can't manipulate words as well as Bobthefish2. It took days for me to figure out his diff above.
My goal is to remove this one weapon from the arsenal Bobthefish2 employs.
In the Wikiquette venue, the tactics and strategy of Bobthefish2 were displayed for a wider audience than in Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. This seemed like a good thing to me. In my hope, the warning to Bobthefish2 was made more resistant to trivializing by cross-posting it here. Here on your talk page, I emphasized regret for the inability to do more; and at John Smith's talk page, I apologized here. This was both seemly and practical.
Bobthefish2's diff above manages to "spin" attention back to me and my words. No.
The core issue is WP:BAITING and what can be done to mitigate the harm it causes. No, this is not about me. Magog the Ogre -- You don't have to do anything; but it's up to me to figure out how to keep a spotlight on WP:BAITING in order to stop it. This thread was a little bit like a step in a longer journey. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I had 48 hours to reply, looks like you or someone deleted this file in less than the promised 48 hours. I created the file myself – drafting it on information available from Google Earth, and the White House visitors' guide. The drawing was made by me. CApitol3 ( talk)
TES hasn't edited for two years, but with the lack of a response, I'd be glad to pick up any requests you have. To address each one:
- The Russian and British zones in Persia were fixed according to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The article has a map attached to it.
- Here's a (partial) description of the French and British demarcating "zones of interest" in Thailand/Siam, but a proper map is harder to come by. I'll have to get back to you on that.
- Here's China at the maximum absolute extent of European influence (Tannu-Tuva is missing however). These areas decreased in size somewhat in the lead-up to WWI in 1914 (only the British and the Russian zones, the rest of them remained virtually unchanged), but they reached their height in 1911. The other ones would also need fixing though.
Regards, -- Morgan Hauser ( talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, this block (of me) was sure an error.
I know you are busy and I'm sure that you mean well, but that is absolutely not an excuse. I was an admin for several years and I would have disemboweled myself with an oyster spoon before I made a block like that.
I still haven't more than scanned WP:DRNC although I will when I get a chance. I'm sure its an interesting essay, but I'd still strongly recommend that you not include essays in the body of block remarks - it looks like you're citing the essay as a reason for the block. Instead, I'd recommend writing it in a separate note on the talk page.
Anyway, it's hard enough just keeping up with policy, and the operative policy here is WP:CONSENSUS.
WP:CONSENSUS opens with "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia", and then goes on to describe this in more detail.
But what if no consensus can be achieved? WP:CONSENSUS talks about this too:
To be fair, there's also a lot about edit warring and not doing it. However, honestly, what the hell are you supposed to do when the other editor won't engage on the talk page? Just throw up your hands and say "well I guess he gets his way"?
OK. The question of the image in the article is a contentious one, and has been for some time. Looking over the talk page archive and the talk page, I see a lot of back-and-forth over a long period, but looking over more recent history, we see this:
As of January 10, 2011, the image had not been in the article for some time. It was in the article on November 22, 2010 - for three minutes, after being inserted by an editor as his third (and so far last) edit to the Wikipedia. (It's very, very typical for new users, usually anons, to edit this article by adding the image. We generally call this "porn trolling".)
Before that, it was in article on November 8, 2010. It was added by an anon editor as his first edit (he has made one other edit, so far). It was in the article for a little under three hours.
Before that, it was in the article on September 5, 2010. In this case, though, it was added by a very long term well-established editor ( User:Exxolon). Nevertheless, it was reverted (by me), and was in the article for about four hours. (I think that's far enough to go back.)
Upon this revert, Exxelon went to the talk page, which is of course exactly the right thing to do, and opened an RfC, which was also good. The RfC was never closed and I guess is technically still open. FWIW the "headcount" is now tied at 9-8 against including the image, by my count. "Strength of argument" is particularly hard to assess on this issue since it mostly comes down to what one considers appropriate editorial standards for a popular general all-ages encyclopedia, and positions (including mine) tend to be entrenched. (But the point that image is, in addition to its other problems, not even accurate is also in play.) So let's say that "strength of argument" is even. So no consensus.
So. You have a situation where
OK?
But in spite of this, on January 10 2011, an editor added the image to the article. This was by User:Valknuter, and it was his 14th edit to the Wikipdia. The justification in the edit summary was "image adds to article". So I reverted the edit, with a summary of "no consensus to restore image".
If I understand the policy correctly, and also per WP:BRD, the next step would be for the other editor to go to the talk page. (I could have invited him to do this in my edit summary, but at this point I figured that this was just another drive-by.)
So at this point, User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval all decided to support Valknuter's edit. The next edit was Cyclopia again inserting the image, with an edit summary of "no consensus to remove it either, it seems"
This was a spectacularly bad edit, and Cyclopia, who is an experienced editor, knows better. "No consensus to remove it either, it seems" absolutely violates the spirit (and the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS. If Cyclopia's logic were followed, all situations where consensus cannot be achieved would devolve to an endless string of "Reverting, no consensus, and I prefer my state". Right? You can see how this would follow?
So this edit was edit warring, and an open invitation to chaos.
Anyway, at no point did any of these users go to the talk page. At no point did any of these editors respond to my messages on their talk pages. At no point did these editors engage in the thread that I opened on the talk page, until after I was blocked.
They all knew that there was an RfC which was either open or, if one considered it to have expired, had expired with no consensus - they knew this, because they had commented in it.
They had all commented in it, and they had all wanted to include the image, and they lost. Sometimes you lose, and move on - we've all done that often enough. But they couldn't accept that. "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute", it says at WP:AN3. If these users weren't doing that, I don't know what you would call it.
Yes, I was a little bit snarky. Yes, I was tardy in opening a thread on the talk page (which was their responsibility, not mine, anyway). Yes, I was little bit slow in realizing that I was being tag-teamed and set up. I'm not perfect, and these were manifestations of imperfection. But they were not blockable offenses.
I was enforcing the policy. If no one enforces the policy, you have either chaos, or simple victory of the most determined in a purely political war of all against all. Right?
And so what was your hurry? If you had taken 15 seconds to look at my user page, you might have said "Hmmm, here is a person who has been editing since 2005, has 20,000 edits, 100 articles created, 29 barnstars, various other useful contributions, and a clean block log*. Perhaps this is not someone we want to throw to the dogs, I could drop him a line and find out what's going on here".
*Well, I was blocked once - but by mistake, and the person was admonished by ArbCom for doing it (not at my instigation, I'm all for letting mistakes go).
I'm sure you admins are overworked, but would that have been so hard? I would have done it. If you don't have time to do something right, don't do it at all. Especially if the something is blocking people from editing the Wikipedia. I mean, the Wikipedia was not going to collapse over this if you'd left it to someone who did have time to assess the situation. Blocking established editors wrongly is not good from an organizational development point of view and absolutely not the way to build and maintain a volunteer organization like this.
Well anyway. Beyond alienating me, the material result of your action is:
It's maddening to see edit warring succeed in this way, and depressing and demoralizing too, for everyone. It's certainly a slap in the face of the editors who took the time to comment in the RfC.
Well, I would like my name to be cleared. I can't erase my block log, but if it's acknowledged that it was a mistake, at least I'll be able to point that out when Cptnono taunts me with some variation of "We had you blocked, and we will do it again if you don't let us get our way" (and he will).
As far as I know, the only way to do this is go to ArbCom and ask to have the block reviewed. This depresses me on many levels, because I hate the idea of digging up all those diffs, I hate to bother ArbCom, I hate the idea of contentious proceedings, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your volunteering to be an admin and all the good work the admins do. I'm sure you're a good admin, and everyone makes mistakes, and I commend you for being polite, which some admins have a little trouble with.
However, I guess I'll have to. However, ArbCom is busy and they probably won't take the case anyway.
It'd be neat if you decided to consider the issue, cowboy up, and admit your mistake. Christ knows I've had to do that enough times. I would do it here if I had made a mistake (beyond the minor ones I allowed to). Then we could go to ArbCom together and much time and trouble would be saved. Hope you'll consider this. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Take your time. I appreciate your willingness to consider the issue, which is very important to me. (FWIW at
Wikipedia:Administrator review/Beeblebrox#A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid (just go to near the end) Beeblebrox and I are undertaking to go through this edit by edit to try to figure out what, exactly, happened).
Herostratus (
talk)
06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait! Stop! I have been going over the entire history of the article edit-by-edit, and I found that the state of the article as not having an image may have been achieved improperly. Not necessarily - I am still looking at this - but maybe. What happened was, the image was deleted from Commons in spring 2010 - not properly, I think, and it was immediately restored, but CommonsDelinker, like a good efficient little bot, had meantime removed it from the article. And after that it gets confusing - still looking at this - but it looks like this might have been leveraged to set a new default state for the article. And not only that, at this point I was involved, and it looks like I may be legitimately faulted here. (I don't remember any of this, and I don't recall gaming the system, and if I did I hope it was unintentional, but still). I'm actually kind of interested in figuring this all out now and will continue and will provide a full report soonest - just didn't want you to work on this unnecessarily. Not necessarily withdrawing anything I said at this time. Herostratus ( talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Finished!
I was wrong, there were no shenanagins in the spring - everything was on the up and up. So everything I wrote above stands.
In order to continue, we first need a close on the talk page's RfC, here: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion. I asked at ANI for someone to close it (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Request for RfC close). But no one would. Well someone has to, and it can't be me since I was involved, so I nominate you.
If you would close this RfC or get someone else to, I would consider this a kindness, and we can move on. Herostratus ( talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's alright - I told you to to stop working on it (until I worked through the stuff mentioned above). No, I did a complete reconstruction of the article history to the level of smile-and-nod-while-slowly-backing-away detail. But that's alright. The main point was interleaving the various edits covering the incident is question, which is here: User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Events of January 2011. It should only a few minutes to go through this (it's not necessary to read any of the other material on the page, of course you can if you want to).
I'd like a close on the RfC as this is material to the situation. If you did this - should only take about 10 minutes or so, I guess - it'd possibly be useful background on the matter. If you don't want to do it, maybe you could get someone else to do it via admin IRC magic or whatever. Herostratus ( talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no, take your time, take as long as you like - no problem. Wedding == important. I appreciate your being open to discussing this.
WP:CLOSE has the info on closing RfC's. I've always figured that it's pretty much like closing an XfD. You'd decide between proposition-succeeded/proposition-failed/no-consensus, I guess. But WP:CLOSE gives more info. Herostratus ( talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh and as to the bot removal thing - its described generally at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#May 7-8-9 of 2010 and discussed in obsessive detail at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Re events of May 7-8-9, 2010. How relevant any of that is to events of January 2011 I can't say. Herostratus ( talk) 06:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about the shellacking. Hell, I used to be an admin and I was flat-out kicked out of the admin corps (if you read my contribution to the RfC you can probably figure out why), so, my sympathy. However, that's how it goes - one day you get a barnstar, next day it feels like you've got
Vyshinsky on your case. It's a cliche, but it's really true - can't learn if you don't make mistakes. (But, God, it's a hard school. It's just hard to admit "these people that are all over my case - they're right". But Christ knows I've had to do it a few times.) Anyway - I didn't read the section you referred to - don't have to - so you made a mistake (if you did), so what. Yes sure of course you're a good enough admin to perform the close, you have my complete confidence and <advice> don't let any mistakes learning experiences shake you up. </advice>
Anyway - the RfC - well as I said WP:CLOSE has the procedure. This should be an easy close as it is (in my view) a simple yes/no proposition: it is proposed to add the image. The proposition either succeeded or it failed (or no consensus). Like an AfD: delete or not (or no consensus). So yeah go for it. Herostratus ( talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time and effort to close that RfC. I appreciate it. You put a lot of time and thought into it. It was a really really well crafted close, and I think it shows that you are an outstanding administrator.
I know you didn't like doing it; well, perhaps it was useful to learn about this. You are now a certified expert at closing RfC's, and are now eligible for the position of Senior Administrator!
That being said, may I say: arrrrrgh! I was hoping that the decision would be different. You see, the RfC was not to keep the image; when the RfC was initiated, there was no image, and the question was whether to add the image; and the "vote" was 9-8 against doing this. And normally this would give a strong presumption of "no consensus" to make the change.
However, a brave and wise administrator may disregard headcount if they see a significant strength of argument on one side. And this you did. So I can't fault you. I'm just whining.
Well, I expected a different close. And if you had closed it as no consensus, we could have gone on from there. But since you closed it as you did, we may say that the image should have been in the article all along anyway. So all that followed is moot. So that's it.
So we're done here. But thanks again, very much, for taking the great deal of time and effort you took to consider this. I'm reasonably well satisfied, if not necessarily clicking my heels. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 04:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you should take it as a compliment. Hey if you want to have some real fun, close the RfC at Talk:Snowballing (sexual practice)#RfC on image. It's expired, the last edit was over a month ago. It's about actual sex, not pornography, so the only argument is whether the image is inaccurate and misleading. It obviously is, but the vote is about 7-2 to keep it anyway. Tough one! (You don't have to do it. But it would be interesting.)
Well, gotta go - the usual suspects are attacking WP:HARDCORE now. They detest the essay and want to rewrite to be essentially the opposite of what was intended. Let's see... I've reverted it twice, but it's (at least) two against one, so I guess I'll be blocked again pretty soon. Oh well, maybe you can be the one to block me - won't feel so bad then - I can have my own personal blocker, or something - like Steve Carlton and Tim McCarver... teamwork! Herostratus ( talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review my edits to File:Ajl772NonWikiExample.JPG and provide advice. No personal attacks were intended, but I will admit how it may be interpreted as such, though I am unsure how to re-word it otherwise. Thank you, Ajl 772 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to move this discussion to my talk page, please let me know. Ajl 772 07:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
BadJPEG}}
. In essence, when there is a jpeg image with text, it's bad, because of the
anti-aliasing; it just looks bad when zooming in. Instead it should be copied to a
lossless format. The old one isn't deleted, but a new one, which looks exactly like the old, will be created: the only difference being it doesn't look as fuzzy.Ok, thank you for your quick response. I will admit I was not in a particularly pleasant mood that night to begin with, and I apologize for my... ?harshness?.
I will agree that normally they are not controversial, however I had just gotten it BACK from deletion, and it seems the standards have changed since I originally uploaded it.
I'll address my thoughts on each of the tags:
Again, apologies for any harsh actions/words on my part. Ajl 772 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I redid the screenshot, and uploaded to commons. Hopefully I did it right. Ajl talk 05:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, much better.
Go for deletion.
Ajl
talk
06:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
File:TegucigalpaPyramid.jpg was rightly deleted in favour of the Commons version
File:Tegucigalpa Pyramid.jpg, however the former was in use in
Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons! Presumably there's a check for "what links here" before a file is deleted?
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC).
Ah well we all do that, most of us more often than once in a blue moon.
Rich
Farmbrough,
02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
Though it's FOX news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (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. |
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for taking a stand against vandalism and edit blocking User:Mindbunny. THANK YOU!! Bped1985 ( talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
Yes, alas I didn't have a barnstar at the ready for that one. So you got an Anti-Vandalism barnstar :D. Speaking of which, thats quite the war going on at Mindbunny's talk page. And I kind of want to know if I had done everything right? I was one of the RC patrollers he speaks so highly of. I joined in kind of late in the game so didn't really engage in the full-out edit war. Thanks!
Ah, well now I know! Thank you! Bped1985 ( talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to understand SL copy right laws. From my understanding This is usable in Wikipedia. Is my understanding correct ? Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
PD-Sri Lanka}}
. If it had constructed within the previous 50 years (for pseudoanonymous/anonymous works) or within 50 years of the death of the author, then the image would have to be deleted on commons as a violation of the artwork (i.e., the building). However, in the US we don't recognize
freedom of panorama on buildings, so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia. That's my take, but I might have missed something; I suggest opening a thread on
commons:Commons talk:Licensing.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia for fair use but not in commons. Now I understand. Kanatonian ( talk)
Then what do I have to do to this file to make it legit ? Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK but from my understading is that that is needed only in Commons but in English Wikipedia we do not recognize freedom of panorama. This is a Wikipedia file not the commons one. Kanatonian ( talk) 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog, not sure what you were trying to do with Mfwitten ( talk · contribs), but it wasn't the right thing. Wikipedia:Block#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_username_change only applies if the user has retired one username and started editing under a different name under Wikipedia:Clean start. It's not used for tagging socks - that's what sock templates are for. If you ever have occasion to use it for an editor that has made a clean start, you must not record the old username in the block log entry. In this case, it's made worse because it now seems unlikely that Mfwitten is connected to ActuallyRationalThinker - the CU evidence is more equivocal than appeared at first sight, and there's no behavioural tie up at all.
This means that there's no evidence of ActuallyRationalThinker operating socks, so I have had to unblock him - although I've warned him that it's not a free pass if he keeps up the aggressive editing. Incidentally, you need to be careful about this good hand/bad hand thing. If a disruptive editor keeps well behaved personae to argue on his behalf, or carry out more subtle disruptions, that's good hand/bad hand. If an editor creates an alternate account to edit in a different area, say to edit on a topic he'd rather not associate his main account with, that's a legitimate use of an alternate account, and only becomes an issue if one of the accounts gets blocked for something else. At that point, he should treat both accounts as blocked, and must not use one account to lobby on behalf of the other. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog, I'm telling you what the policy says, because if you don't get it right, someone is going to drag you before Arbcom and ask that you be desysopped.
Even if the ART and Mfwitten accounts are connected, Mfwitten is not a cleanstart of ART. Apart from anything else the Mfwitten account has been around longer than the ART account. Think about it. Therefore there is no way the policy can apply to them. I share your frustration with checkusers, but even if they had been 100% bang on right and Mfwitten had been caught red handed, it would still have been against policy to mark the blocklog in the way that you did.
I am concerned that you still haven't grasped what the policy says.
Magog, you don't grasp it at all. There is simply no policy which allows you to do what you did with respect to the block log. None. Nada. Admins are required to adhere to policy in this kind of action which leaves a permanent record, and your continued refusal to recognise this is deeply concerning. If you want to indicate that one account is a sock of another, use sock tags on the talk and userpages. Don't mark the block log like this. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition, Mfwitten hasn't done anything wrong. The SPI was because it was thought ART and Drealgrin were the same person, editing the same article at the same time, to votestack. Mfwitten has never edited any article on male genitalia ever. What on earth offence has he committed that would warrant any kind of a block. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog, the policy isn't written for sockpuppetry at all. when you cleanstart you RETIRE one account and edit with a different one. That ISN'T SOCKPUPPETRY. In addition, operating two accounts, even if you don't acknowledge them, ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES. You weren't told he likely did anything wrong, you were told he was likely the same editor. That ISN'T THE SAME THING. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I think the initial point here was that block logs shouldn't be used for making notations and there are a variety of sockpuppet templates for user/usertalk pages that are used for this particular purpose. Have you had a chance to take a look at those and see how they're usually used? Shell babelfish 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, did you misunderstand me or not when it came to those edits? Don't want to be doing anything wrong. Egg Centric ( talk) 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok cool. BTW where I went to uni there were very nearby the gog magog hills... you didn't do the same by any chance? Egg Centric ( talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Do ya see yourself more as a gog or a magog? Magog one assumes ;) 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Runs away* Egg Centric ( talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you've eliminated some duplicates of images I've submitted to the commons. That's good, but there are still others I'm waiting for. These include five in Category:Images of Orange County, New York, four in Category:Images of Rockland County, New York, one in Category:Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District images, two in Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana, and one in Category:Images of Valparaiso, Indiana, and perhaps some I can't think of right now. Can you delete these soon? ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you were involved on at least two levels, I'd like to ask why LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk · contribs) is allowed to keep an enemies list at " Anti-LAEC anon editors"-- specifically, listing my name without further justification. I have asked him to remove my name [1] but he refuses, rejects request to provide diffs, and repeats old arguments. - PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I won't bother you again about it. I'll just ask another admin for some advice on how to proceed since I don't think it's fair to allow the list to stand. - PrBeacon (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the list. It's not so much that I was mad or offended -- I can disagree with an editor without taking it personally. - PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you would be willing to create a map for the footprint of Planned Parenthood health center locations.. I think it would be a very good addition to the article under facilities, what do you think? W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sweet. If you get a chance, I think it would also be very interesting to have a footprint of the two major CPC chains for the crisis pregnancy center article but I'm not sure how much time making the maps take so I'm loath to ask for more. :) W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, please do not feel obligated to make a map. I think it would be a nice addition to the article but if you are not comfortable I would hate to impose. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you though, I am a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood and their work and think that the anti-abortion groups attacking them are much more sleazy. W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me why this was deleted? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have troubled you about this. Just been checking my download log and now see the file name has been changed. :) -- Rskp ( talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Bellgrove_rail_crash
The image for this page was apparently deleted, is there a way to track down who deleted it so it can be discussed.
Thanks-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks!-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog-- Just to explain what User:Valfontis recently told you in an edit summary, regarding what's been going on here, the blanking was not vandalism on my part (I would never do that). Rather, it was cleanup of {{ WikiProject Oregon}} on Wikipedia file talk pages corresponding to images on Commons that I was told to do here. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it was your intention, but your changes broke some transclusions, like here. Notice the {{{1}}} after the icon. Just FYI. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanx We all want the headache to be reduced The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You need to be aware of this post by WMO. I deleted as an NPA, but this was after he started editing after he came back from his 48 hour block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I have emailed his mentor, User:Kubigula, but WMO hasn't been responding to his emails, so I am not sure what good Kubigula can do at this point. I am beginning to think that WMO is a lost cause. He doesn't seem to be responding to mentoring or admins telling him to back off, blocks don't seem to be giving him the "slap up side the head" to get him back on track. I really don't know what more we can do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a freeware game program, as was File:ChuShogiBrd.gif before it was deleted. (I've restored it for now.) They do not compromise the integrity of the software, and wouldn't make any difference even if it were for profit. Are such things really not allowed any more? — kwami ( talk) 07:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I even have that hard drive any more. I'll take a look. — kwami ( talk) 09:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Magog, I had indicated the source of the 'File:Abrar Husain.jpg' as Abid Husain, when I first uploaded the file. Mr. Abid Husain is the son of the late Major General Abrar Husain and the owner of the painting. The digital copy of the painting was provided to me by him on my request as I am the Regimental Historian and Archivist of the Baloch Regiment to which the late General belonged. As such, I have full authority to release the image in public domain. Furthermore, the picture was uploaded with Mr. Abid Husain's knowledge and permission, when I created the page 'Abrar Husain'. I have now added the information on file's description page. I hope that would meet your requirements. Regards, Beloochee ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011. (UTC)
It appears numerous editors found User:Bobthefish2 to be disruptive and an offender of WP:CIVIL. If he proves to be a menace to the Senkaku Islands article, my position is that we would certainly benefit from his removal from the page as per User:John Smith's suggestion. Since you have some past experiences with the Senkaku Islands issues, you may be interested in the recently opened RFC on his misbehaviour. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
What? WP has such a convoluted system.
By the way, I do appreciate your response. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't expecting you to speak in my favour. I just thought I'd like to give the accuser the best shot at what he wants to accomplish before making my own move. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2
In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.
I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:
WP:AGF is drained of meaning by
WP:POKING
WP:BAITING -- see context
here +
here which justifies
zero tolerance.
This makes me sad. I didn't understand.-- Tenmei ( talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In this context of regret for what I have not done, the focal point shifts away from me and my words to WP:BAITING and to what can be done to mitigate our problem. This mildly-phrased, open-ended optional comment seems to be the least I can do. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre -- Consider this: Wikiquote explains here that the following is misattributed --
I learned these word as a Helen Keller quotation, and I think of her each time I read them.
It is very small, but I can say "no."
No -- my intended objective of "zero tolerance" for WP:BAITING requires that I rebut Bobthefish2's marginalizing words above.
I don't have to be a Nobel laureate in literature to explain that mentioning Gibralter was
"poking",
baiting,
"in your face". At the same time, I acknowledge that
Bobthefish2 is much better at wiki-victim/blame games than I understand. I admit that I don't handle this well enough, but silence only causes the problem to grow. I tried to understand as
John Smith's exchanges with
Bobthefish2 developed since October. These are
lessons learned the hard way.
In practical terms, this is about harassment and bullying. I can't do much to avert this problem, but I can give it a name.
In real world terms, I can't manipulate words as well as Bobthefish2. It took days for me to figure out his diff above.
My goal is to remove this one weapon from the arsenal Bobthefish2 employs.
In the Wikiquette venue, the tactics and strategy of Bobthefish2 were displayed for a wider audience than in Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. This seemed like a good thing to me. In my hope, the warning to Bobthefish2 was made more resistant to trivializing by cross-posting it here. Here on your talk page, I emphasized regret for the inability to do more; and at John Smith's talk page, I apologized here. This was both seemly and practical.
Bobthefish2's diff above manages to "spin" attention back to me and my words. No.
The core issue is WP:BAITING and what can be done to mitigate the harm it causes. No, this is not about me. Magog the Ogre -- You don't have to do anything; but it's up to me to figure out how to keep a spotlight on WP:BAITING in order to stop it. This thread was a little bit like a step in a longer journey. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I had 48 hours to reply, looks like you or someone deleted this file in less than the promised 48 hours. I created the file myself – drafting it on information available from Google Earth, and the White House visitors' guide. The drawing was made by me. CApitol3 ( talk)
TES hasn't edited for two years, but with the lack of a response, I'd be glad to pick up any requests you have. To address each one:
- The Russian and British zones in Persia were fixed according to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The article has a map attached to it.
- Here's a (partial) description of the French and British demarcating "zones of interest" in Thailand/Siam, but a proper map is harder to come by. I'll have to get back to you on that.
- Here's China at the maximum absolute extent of European influence (Tannu-Tuva is missing however). These areas decreased in size somewhat in the lead-up to WWI in 1914 (only the British and the Russian zones, the rest of them remained virtually unchanged), but they reached their height in 1911. The other ones would also need fixing though.
Regards, -- Morgan Hauser ( talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, this block (of me) was sure an error.
I know you are busy and I'm sure that you mean well, but that is absolutely not an excuse. I was an admin for several years and I would have disemboweled myself with an oyster spoon before I made a block like that.
I still haven't more than scanned WP:DRNC although I will when I get a chance. I'm sure its an interesting essay, but I'd still strongly recommend that you not include essays in the body of block remarks - it looks like you're citing the essay as a reason for the block. Instead, I'd recommend writing it in a separate note on the talk page.
Anyway, it's hard enough just keeping up with policy, and the operative policy here is WP:CONSENSUS.
WP:CONSENSUS opens with "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia", and then goes on to describe this in more detail.
But what if no consensus can be achieved? WP:CONSENSUS talks about this too:
To be fair, there's also a lot about edit warring and not doing it. However, honestly, what the hell are you supposed to do when the other editor won't engage on the talk page? Just throw up your hands and say "well I guess he gets his way"?
OK. The question of the image in the article is a contentious one, and has been for some time. Looking over the talk page archive and the talk page, I see a lot of back-and-forth over a long period, but looking over more recent history, we see this:
As of January 10, 2011, the image had not been in the article for some time. It was in the article on November 22, 2010 - for three minutes, after being inserted by an editor as his third (and so far last) edit to the Wikipedia. (It's very, very typical for new users, usually anons, to edit this article by adding the image. We generally call this "porn trolling".)
Before that, it was in article on November 8, 2010. It was added by an anon editor as his first edit (he has made one other edit, so far). It was in the article for a little under three hours.
Before that, it was in the article on September 5, 2010. In this case, though, it was added by a very long term well-established editor ( User:Exxolon). Nevertheless, it was reverted (by me), and was in the article for about four hours. (I think that's far enough to go back.)
Upon this revert, Exxelon went to the talk page, which is of course exactly the right thing to do, and opened an RfC, which was also good. The RfC was never closed and I guess is technically still open. FWIW the "headcount" is now tied at 9-8 against including the image, by my count. "Strength of argument" is particularly hard to assess on this issue since it mostly comes down to what one considers appropriate editorial standards for a popular general all-ages encyclopedia, and positions (including mine) tend to be entrenched. (But the point that image is, in addition to its other problems, not even accurate is also in play.) So let's say that "strength of argument" is even. So no consensus.
So. You have a situation where
OK?
But in spite of this, on January 10 2011, an editor added the image to the article. This was by User:Valknuter, and it was his 14th edit to the Wikipdia. The justification in the edit summary was "image adds to article". So I reverted the edit, with a summary of "no consensus to restore image".
If I understand the policy correctly, and also per WP:BRD, the next step would be for the other editor to go to the talk page. (I could have invited him to do this in my edit summary, but at this point I figured that this was just another drive-by.)
So at this point, User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval all decided to support Valknuter's edit. The next edit was Cyclopia again inserting the image, with an edit summary of "no consensus to remove it either, it seems"
This was a spectacularly bad edit, and Cyclopia, who is an experienced editor, knows better. "No consensus to remove it either, it seems" absolutely violates the spirit (and the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS. If Cyclopia's logic were followed, all situations where consensus cannot be achieved would devolve to an endless string of "Reverting, no consensus, and I prefer my state". Right? You can see how this would follow?
So this edit was edit warring, and an open invitation to chaos.
Anyway, at no point did any of these users go to the talk page. At no point did any of these editors respond to my messages on their talk pages. At no point did these editors engage in the thread that I opened on the talk page, until after I was blocked.
They all knew that there was an RfC which was either open or, if one considered it to have expired, had expired with no consensus - they knew this, because they had commented in it.
They had all commented in it, and they had all wanted to include the image, and they lost. Sometimes you lose, and move on - we've all done that often enough. But they couldn't accept that. "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute", it says at WP:AN3. If these users weren't doing that, I don't know what you would call it.
Yes, I was a little bit snarky. Yes, I was tardy in opening a thread on the talk page (which was their responsibility, not mine, anyway). Yes, I was little bit slow in realizing that I was being tag-teamed and set up. I'm not perfect, and these were manifestations of imperfection. But they were not blockable offenses.
I was enforcing the policy. If no one enforces the policy, you have either chaos, or simple victory of the most determined in a purely political war of all against all. Right?
And so what was your hurry? If you had taken 15 seconds to look at my user page, you might have said "Hmmm, here is a person who has been editing since 2005, has 20,000 edits, 100 articles created, 29 barnstars, various other useful contributions, and a clean block log*. Perhaps this is not someone we want to throw to the dogs, I could drop him a line and find out what's going on here".
*Well, I was blocked once - but by mistake, and the person was admonished by ArbCom for doing it (not at my instigation, I'm all for letting mistakes go).
I'm sure you admins are overworked, but would that have been so hard? I would have done it. If you don't have time to do something right, don't do it at all. Especially if the something is blocking people from editing the Wikipedia. I mean, the Wikipedia was not going to collapse over this if you'd left it to someone who did have time to assess the situation. Blocking established editors wrongly is not good from an organizational development point of view and absolutely not the way to build and maintain a volunteer organization like this.
Well anyway. Beyond alienating me, the material result of your action is:
It's maddening to see edit warring succeed in this way, and depressing and demoralizing too, for everyone. It's certainly a slap in the face of the editors who took the time to comment in the RfC.
Well, I would like my name to be cleared. I can't erase my block log, but if it's acknowledged that it was a mistake, at least I'll be able to point that out when Cptnono taunts me with some variation of "We had you blocked, and we will do it again if you don't let us get our way" (and he will).
As far as I know, the only way to do this is go to ArbCom and ask to have the block reviewed. This depresses me on many levels, because I hate the idea of digging up all those diffs, I hate to bother ArbCom, I hate the idea of contentious proceedings, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your volunteering to be an admin and all the good work the admins do. I'm sure you're a good admin, and everyone makes mistakes, and I commend you for being polite, which some admins have a little trouble with.
However, I guess I'll have to. However, ArbCom is busy and they probably won't take the case anyway.
It'd be neat if you decided to consider the issue, cowboy up, and admit your mistake. Christ knows I've had to do that enough times. I would do it here if I had made a mistake (beyond the minor ones I allowed to). Then we could go to ArbCom together and much time and trouble would be saved. Hope you'll consider this. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Take your time. I appreciate your willingness to consider the issue, which is very important to me. (FWIW at
Wikipedia:Administrator review/Beeblebrox#A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid (just go to near the end) Beeblebrox and I are undertaking to go through this edit by edit to try to figure out what, exactly, happened).
Herostratus (
talk)
06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait! Stop! I have been going over the entire history of the article edit-by-edit, and I found that the state of the article as not having an image may have been achieved improperly. Not necessarily - I am still looking at this - but maybe. What happened was, the image was deleted from Commons in spring 2010 - not properly, I think, and it was immediately restored, but CommonsDelinker, like a good efficient little bot, had meantime removed it from the article. And after that it gets confusing - still looking at this - but it looks like this might have been leveraged to set a new default state for the article. And not only that, at this point I was involved, and it looks like I may be legitimately faulted here. (I don't remember any of this, and I don't recall gaming the system, and if I did I hope it was unintentional, but still). I'm actually kind of interested in figuring this all out now and will continue and will provide a full report soonest - just didn't want you to work on this unnecessarily. Not necessarily withdrawing anything I said at this time. Herostratus ( talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Finished!
I was wrong, there were no shenanagins in the spring - everything was on the up and up. So everything I wrote above stands.
In order to continue, we first need a close on the talk page's RfC, here: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion. I asked at ANI for someone to close it (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Request for RfC close). But no one would. Well someone has to, and it can't be me since I was involved, so I nominate you.
If you would close this RfC or get someone else to, I would consider this a kindness, and we can move on. Herostratus ( talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's alright - I told you to to stop working on it (until I worked through the stuff mentioned above). No, I did a complete reconstruction of the article history to the level of smile-and-nod-while-slowly-backing-away detail. But that's alright. The main point was interleaving the various edits covering the incident is question, which is here: User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Events of January 2011. It should only a few minutes to go through this (it's not necessary to read any of the other material on the page, of course you can if you want to).
I'd like a close on the RfC as this is material to the situation. If you did this - should only take about 10 minutes or so, I guess - it'd possibly be useful background on the matter. If you don't want to do it, maybe you could get someone else to do it via admin IRC magic or whatever. Herostratus ( talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no, take your time, take as long as you like - no problem. Wedding == important. I appreciate your being open to discussing this.
WP:CLOSE has the info on closing RfC's. I've always figured that it's pretty much like closing an XfD. You'd decide between proposition-succeeded/proposition-failed/no-consensus, I guess. But WP:CLOSE gives more info. Herostratus ( talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh and as to the bot removal thing - its described generally at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#May 7-8-9 of 2010 and discussed in obsessive detail at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Re events of May 7-8-9, 2010. How relevant any of that is to events of January 2011 I can't say. Herostratus ( talk) 06:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about the shellacking. Hell, I used to be an admin and I was flat-out kicked out of the admin corps (if you read my contribution to the RfC you can probably figure out why), so, my sympathy. However, that's how it goes - one day you get a barnstar, next day it feels like you've got
Vyshinsky on your case. It's a cliche, but it's really true - can't learn if you don't make mistakes. (But, God, it's a hard school. It's just hard to admit "these people that are all over my case - they're right". But Christ knows I've had to do it a few times.) Anyway - I didn't read the section you referred to - don't have to - so you made a mistake (if you did), so what. Yes sure of course you're a good enough admin to perform the close, you have my complete confidence and <advice> don't let any mistakes learning experiences shake you up. </advice>
Anyway - the RfC - well as I said WP:CLOSE has the procedure. This should be an easy close as it is (in my view) a simple yes/no proposition: it is proposed to add the image. The proposition either succeeded or it failed (or no consensus). Like an AfD: delete or not (or no consensus). So yeah go for it. Herostratus ( talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time and effort to close that RfC. I appreciate it. You put a lot of time and thought into it. It was a really really well crafted close, and I think it shows that you are an outstanding administrator.
I know you didn't like doing it; well, perhaps it was useful to learn about this. You are now a certified expert at closing RfC's, and are now eligible for the position of Senior Administrator!
That being said, may I say: arrrrrgh! I was hoping that the decision would be different. You see, the RfC was not to keep the image; when the RfC was initiated, there was no image, and the question was whether to add the image; and the "vote" was 9-8 against doing this. And normally this would give a strong presumption of "no consensus" to make the change.
However, a brave and wise administrator may disregard headcount if they see a significant strength of argument on one side. And this you did. So I can't fault you. I'm just whining.
Well, I expected a different close. And if you had closed it as no consensus, we could have gone on from there. But since you closed it as you did, we may say that the image should have been in the article all along anyway. So all that followed is moot. So that's it.
So we're done here. But thanks again, very much, for taking the great deal of time and effort you took to consider this. I'm reasonably well satisfied, if not necessarily clicking my heels. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 04:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you should take it as a compliment. Hey if you want to have some real fun, close the RfC at Talk:Snowballing (sexual practice)#RfC on image. It's expired, the last edit was over a month ago. It's about actual sex, not pornography, so the only argument is whether the image is inaccurate and misleading. It obviously is, but the vote is about 7-2 to keep it anyway. Tough one! (You don't have to do it. But it would be interesting.)
Well, gotta go - the usual suspects are attacking WP:HARDCORE now. They detest the essay and want to rewrite to be essentially the opposite of what was intended. Let's see... I've reverted it twice, but it's (at least) two against one, so I guess I'll be blocked again pretty soon. Oh well, maybe you can be the one to block me - won't feel so bad then - I can have my own personal blocker, or something - like Steve Carlton and Tim McCarver... teamwork! Herostratus ( talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review my edits to File:Ajl772NonWikiExample.JPG and provide advice. No personal attacks were intended, but I will admit how it may be interpreted as such, though I am unsure how to re-word it otherwise. Thank you, Ajl 772 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to move this discussion to my talk page, please let me know. Ajl 772 07:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
BadJPEG}}
. In essence, when there is a jpeg image with text, it's bad, because of the
anti-aliasing; it just looks bad when zooming in. Instead it should be copied to a
lossless format. The old one isn't deleted, but a new one, which looks exactly like the old, will be created: the only difference being it doesn't look as fuzzy.Ok, thank you for your quick response. I will admit I was not in a particularly pleasant mood that night to begin with, and I apologize for my... ?harshness?.
I will agree that normally they are not controversial, however I had just gotten it BACK from deletion, and it seems the standards have changed since I originally uploaded it.
I'll address my thoughts on each of the tags:
Again, apologies for any harsh actions/words on my part. Ajl 772 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I redid the screenshot, and uploaded to commons. Hopefully I did it right. Ajl talk 05:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, much better.
Go for deletion.
Ajl
talk
06:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
File:TegucigalpaPyramid.jpg was rightly deleted in favour of the Commons version
File:Tegucigalpa Pyramid.jpg, however the former was in use in
Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons! Presumably there's a check for "what links here" before a file is deleted?
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC).
Ah well we all do that, most of us more often than once in a blue moon.
Rich
Farmbrough,
02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
Though it's FOX news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)