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.

Please stop hounding Friday on his talk page. Leaving messages which are rude, insulting, condescending, and incivil is not a helpful form of constructive criticism. Engaging in exactly the type of behaviour for which you criticise Friday is not likely to resolve improve Wikipedia. Leaving rude messages which (you explicitly acknowledge) will be ignored is a waste of time and pointlessly inflammatory.

If you don't want people to shoot the messenger, the messenger shouldn't paint a big red target on his ass and wave it at the crowd. If you'd prefer that people not criticise your conduct, don't behave in a way that is worthy of reproach. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your double standards and ignoring his poor behaviour while simultaneously criticising mine. I find it incredible you ask me to "remedy concerns" but completely ignore the actual issue, which is Friday's negative outlook and approach to other editors. I don't even know what these concerns about me are; the RfC is from June, and nobody has told me anything since. You claim it is a waste of time to leave messages, but if I don't leave any message, people will falsely claim I haven't tried to solve the dispute, which I clearly have. I know they'll be rudely brushed aside, but it needs saying.

How would you suggest going about getting him to change his behaviour, if every time anyone brings the issue up they are either ignored, or rudely shrugged off? It doesn't help that when they do, unrelated people turn up to turn around the issue and make it the other user's fault. Julian's original comment was rudely shrugged off, but I don't see anything problematic with his comment. Nor do I see it for any of the other times people have come to his talk page, or said so in other places.

I ask a final question: why don't you concentrate on the issue at hand instead of completely ignoring it? Or will you ignore this question too? Majorly talk 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that he wouldn't ignore you if you weren't rude, condescending, and unpleasant...and wilfully ignorant of the problems with your approach. Friday's response to Julian's comment was brusque, but not over the line. Your follow-up comment was condescending and insulting. Your behaviour borders on harrassment of Friday. If you can't resolve a dispute through polite one-on-one conversation, then you need to know when and how to appropriate escalate your concern to reach a broader neutral audience. Continuing to leave unpleasant, goading remarks on Friday's talk page isn't dispute resolution, it's an inflammatory waste of time.

You did receive feedback to the RfC you filed on Friday; even editors who were predisposed to support criticism of Friday were inclined to distance themselves from your behaviour. What you choose to do with that feedback is up to you. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another RFC is a waste of time. First of all, it will have no effect whatsoever on Friday if I filed it. He ignores everything I say. Second, like the last time, it will be completely misinterpreted to some, who will insist it's me wanting him to stop opposing, which is completely false. Thirdly, I don't believe in double jeopardy. He doesn't edit enough, or cause that many problems to make an RFC worth it, without repeating old stuff. So unless I wait, there's nothing I can do, and every time I see one of his unsavoury remarks on RfA, I'll just have to add it to the list.

And you're still ignoring my question as to why you are avoiding the actual issue here that's causing me to go to his talk page like this. Majorly talk 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, I don't believe I need to fix every problem on Wikipedia at once. I don't frequent RfA, so Friday's conduct there doesn't bother me and isn't visible to me. I do have his talk page watchlisted, so I am aware of your poor conduct there. Moreover, the level of unpleasant vitriol and condescension with which you approach Friday on his talk page in general seems to greatly exceed the unpleasantness of the remarks for which you are criticising him. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you obviously haven't seen much of him. If you had been watching someone insult and belittle fellow editors for over two years, I'm pretty sure you'd be mad too. As it happens though, I'm sick and tired of this. The easiest solution is as follows: Friday changes his voting style to be a) constructive b) politer c) courteous (as it's none of these things currently). It's that simple, and it's what I have been saying for months. Why this simple change is so difficult, or unwanted, is beyond my understanding. It's a shame you obviously know so little of the history here, yet you feel inclined to boss me about and make idle threats towards me. Majorly talk 21:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a good thing or bad thing :-) BTW this talk page is watched by 268 people, more than Iridescent (235), Ottava Rima (144), Malleus (156), and Keeper76 (186) to name a few who I'd have expected to have more than me. Interesting tool there. It would be good if we could actually see who was watching too. Majorly talk 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a neat tool: I'm more popular than I expected...191 are watching my user/talk pages! I agree that it would be good if it said who was watching, too. Acalamari 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

235 people watching me? Who the hell are they and why? There can't be all that many people who want to read endless discussions about bishops, early electric trains and sourcing 19th century maps, interspersed with arguments with Moni about the MOS. Lara still beats you though. –  iride scent 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I was close. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Miles off the top spots, though. –  iride scent 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm taking this as a bad sign especially considering the number... but it is a cool tool...--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is more like it. Majorly talk 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That answered my question, I put in your name, SoWhy, Pedro, SandyGeorgia, Ottava and we all came back with 13, thought there was a bug... but just in case you were wondering, you have more people watching for your RFB than you do your RfA!--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Majorly's RfB #2 actually happened... – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My non-existent 4th RfB has 4 people watching it. Majorly talk 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you ran 3 times for RfB! So you have twice as many people watching your next RfB as I do mine... ;-)--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, my 4th RfA has three watchers, while #5 and #6 each have two. Apparently some people expect trouble in my future! – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say for the record Julian that I'm not one of those vultures, hovering to pounce at any sign of weakness. For what it's worth I think you've done a pretty fair job so far. -- Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

lolwut J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What a stumble upon Good job that's staying redlinked. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I want to apologize for my misunderstanding of the intent of the questions you used to post at RFA and moreover for my recent ridicule of your stance against an RfB candidate that related in part to his canned questions. I didn't get it. Sorry.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it at all. I was dumb enough to even attempt to do anything like that anyway. Majorly talk 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework the article and maybe wikipedia will get a new dedicated editor. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Ikip ( talk) 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Majorly talk 01:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

wow. thanks. I was not expecting your to say yes :)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This barnstar is for Majorly, for helping brand new editors develop and grow hopefully into dedicated volunteers to our project. Thank you so much for thinking of those who have no voice. Ikip ( talk) 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I will talk to the editor, and see how I can help him, if you are interested, or have time, you are welcome to join me. Ikip ( talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote him an encouraging note. In a couple of months he will either request the article to be deleted himself, because he knows the rules, or he will have lost interest in wikipedia and left, in which case we can call a MfD. Thank you for your consideration. Ikip ( talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why you thought I'd have said no, I consider myself a reasonable guy. Majorly talk 10:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you created a redirect from the mainspace to your userfied page. It's my understanding this is against policy. I've held off on speedy to bring it to you. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I just moved the page. Majorly talk 10:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given this a once-over copyedit and left some notes on the talkpage. In many cases phrasings I introduced were still suboptimal, so feel free to raise them on talk along with any disputed tags or other concerns. I'm not particularly partial to having my way, and I usually greet any copyediting of articles I write with horror, so no need to be diplomatic! Cheers,  Skomorokh  00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

email. –  iride scent 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks, Majorly talk 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My original reaction to this was to reply something along the lines of "We apologize for having scuttled your opportunity to shit on the committee by having done our best to act reasonably in a blatant show of disregard for your presumptions." It would have been cathartic if undiplomatic and overly caustic — but the sentiment is nonetheless felt, and I hope you can understand why.

None of us were stupid enough to expect that sacrificing what little free time and sanity we have left for this crummy responsibility would have us loved and celebrated by everyone. But when an intelligent and otherwise discerning editor like you starts spewing vicious bile like this for no (apparent) reason beyond spite, it hurts. I don't know what particular bone you have to pick with the committee that led to your feeling the need to presume our evilness, but I would appreciate it if you refrained from attacking preemptively like this. At best it leads to needless drama, and at worst it's an unwarranted and malicious attack towards a dozen people who don't deserve it.

You might not want to hear it, but we (the committee members) are a pretty good bunch of people who try our damnest to do good for the encyclopedia and its editors. We don't always agree on how, and we don't always succeed, but we try. I can tell you for a fact that not one of us is in it for the politics, is attempting to misuse the authority of their seats (Ha!) for personal gain or revenge, nor do we support any form of dissent suppression. You need to either presume that we are imperfectly trying to do the Right Thing, or that we are all lying bastards — because none of us would condone the kind of unethical and amoral behavior you ascribe to us without raising hell. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the whole nature of background discussions – on an encyclopedia, to be against the ideals of why we are here. It's supposed to be an open, collaborative project, writing encyclopedia articles. Arbcom goes against this ideal completely. I'll just say I hate it when arbcom does this, very much. There is no need for secrecy and backchatting. If you found something up with the account, why did you not think of asking... the community if they wanted a say? Right, I forgot. Arbcom isn't interested in the community. I hate the way an arbcom member pops up from nowhere and says "per ArbCom, do not unblock without permission" - completely against the spirit of the project. It damn well is political. Show me a single problematic edit from Pastor Theo, then I'll believe you when you say it isn't. My own opinion is that Pastor Theo should certainly be desysopped, due to the nature in which his old account was banned and due to the fact he was socking abusively. But the principle is that the community has no say in anything like this, which is disgraceful.

And personally, I don't see anything at all vicious in what I said – and believe me, I know it when I see vicious. Check out JayHenry's oppose in my RfA for an example of vicious bile. Yeah, the one I failed mostly because I called a troll a troll, who was eventually banned. Majorly talk 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that what you said was the most vicious thing possible — nor that you held any sort of exclusivity in the matter — but I hope you'll forgive me for not considering "others can/have been worse" to be a particularily good justification of anything.

I don't agree with your assessment of the nature of ArbCom. I believe that having a body entrusted with the ability to draw bright lines and to act decisively without prior community consensus not only isn't against the nature or spirit of the project but is, in fact, necessary to protect and sustain those ideals. I don't think that enforcing the rules while trying to minimize the negative impact, which sometimes need discreet deliberation, is political.

I do note that this is possibly an interesting discussion we could have — and which I do welcome — but that your opinion in no way places you in "danger" from the committee. That you imply malice from the arbitrators, especially by making a provocative "question" like you have, is quite allowable. It is, however, disappointing that you would chose to make use of such rhetoric (which— I should point out— is considerably more political than blocking a sock ever could be) rather than discuss the matter. —  Coren  ^(talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don't know where you get the idea I feel I am in danger from Arbcom – from what, a ban? I'm only here for one reason, I don't know about you and the rest of you. I don't feel threatened by you, nor do I feel I have to follow your orders. If it's just disappointing, that's your opinion.

There are many things I dislike on Wikipedia. Arbcom is one of them. Nothing personal of course, just the whole idea in general I find problematic. Majorly talk 14:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, there's probably a very interesting discussion to be had on that point between us (preferably over a pint — and this is a standing invitation). My objection isn't to your opinion on the matter but on the presumption of malice or dishonesty you displayed towards the committee. My only request is that you try to remember that we are genuinely trying to do the right thing, even if it's in a way you disagree with. Don't ask us when we stopped beating our wives until you at least know there were wives to beat in the first place.  :-) —  Coren  ^(talk) 16:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing really doesn't help ArbCom's already bad reputation. Stifling legit concerns, rolling back an established user on a talk page and fully protecting it... it's preposterous. The clerks are no better than the arbitrators, it seems. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds ArbCom's actions problematic. Majorly talk 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing a bit of talk-page stalking, and came across this one. Just a couple of humble suggestions: I've have enormous success in getting images for my current project by asking people on Flickr to relicense to a compatible license. 8 of the images are relicensed from copyright; only one person ignored me completely, and I'm waiting to hear back from another who's changed to an incompatible license - a much greater hit rate than I expected. A quick Flickr search shows some possibilities (and not all ones that you took, either!) Also, the architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner says that it's "one of the four best timber mansions in England", so you might want to hunt down the Cheshire volume of his Buildings of England series. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try with the images perhaps. Regarding the quote, it's quoted in the books I have here too, so I could very easily use them for it. Majorly talk 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pevsner will probably have some extra architectural details, which might be useful, not just the quote. I suspect someone at WP:MANC will have a copy. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got Pevsner's volume on Cheshire somewhere and could have a look to see if there's anything in it not covered in the article, or if there are any other choice quotes worth adding. If I can't find my copy I'll ask Peter I. Vardy of WP:CHES if he can help. Nev1 ( talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the Moors murders FAC. I really can relate to what you said about the James Bulger article. I'm not afraid to admit that there were times I was moved to tears by some of the things I read about this case, and I know PoD felt just the same. Had to be done though. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Short (without deep research) answer: no, unless this particular image is by some reason in the public domain (published before 1923 for US, author died more than 70 years ago, etc).

A reading of commons:Commons:Coats of Arms would be of help. Basically, while the definition for this coat of arms is in the public domain (first set down way back in the 12th century), the representation is an artistic interpretation and can be subjected to copyright laws. So the copyrights of this particular representation have to be known before it can be used as a "free" image.

There is a representation (albeit slightly different) that is in the public domain. It was published on the first page of this book; it is in the public domain because it was published before 1923 (1851) and the artist of this representation (very likely the author Amzi Benedict Davenport) has very likely died more than 70 years ago (even if the artist was not Amzi). Although this representation lacks the helm and wings of the one you found, the head of the hanged-man is there. Jappalang ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)