per discussion elsewhere, i've removed characterization of myself, as well as my edits, and information unrelated to this dispute. if you would like to dispute the rest of that material, please do so in a different forum, or agree to open the scope of this dispute to include that data. also, go ahead and revert if you like, and re-edit to accomplish same. however, i want to limit the scope so that i am uninvolved in this discussion unless you would like otherwise. ... aa: talk 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Those involved will point out that previously Neto had been asked to remove them, that isn't the point,
the point is that Locke, David, crotalus and Radiant all got involved in this matter 2 Feb - 4 Feb when they just so happened to be elevating totally unrelated disputed at AUM and Infobox.
The next fantastic piece of wikilawyering is that Neto didn't take the images down after I asked him, he replaced them.
The images involved were removed, period.
This utterly ridiculous statement below that he didn't take them down is emblematic of how blinded by the dispute they are and the type of ridiculous assaults back and forth between these parties that happens almost every day. So intent are they in finding fault with Neto they are reduced to contend that replacing images with acceptable ones somehow doesn't achieve the goal of complying with not having "Fair Use" images in the user space.
The point is I was the first one to point the issues out to Neto before taking it upon myself to edit his user page
(always in bad taste and due to cause issues),
I pointed out the issues with the images and answered his questions
and he removed them and replaced them with acceptable images of his own volition.
David, if you are going to stick with this position that changing images to acceptable ones does not in fact achieve the same goal of removing the fair use ones (since, technically, the fair use ones are GONE and now non-fair use ones are there) there really is no hope for you. As this entire rant demonstrates, I think you lost any objectivity in this a long long time ago.
By the way, pay close attention here -- see this diff?? Notice how the Ferrigno image and the cowbell image WERE THERE (Alkivar put them back, yes they are inline, no, I don't care, he still removed the reference to them) and then Neto removed them and replaced them with acceptable images? Check one more thing, the time, the time was 4 February @ 11:49, I had asked him to remove them on 4 February @ 01:28 [1], that would be before 11:49
and at the time I asked him they WERE STILL THERE, not inline.
The point, which you seem to continue to miss is one you make so well yourself -- seven other people tried to get him to remove them and he kept putting them back. When I asked him, and was polite about it and not a dick about it and just removing them without working it out with him, they were replaced with acceptable images and haven't come back.
Go figure. I wouldn't expect you to understand though given your attitude toward Neto.
Finally, the last time anyone worried about it was 19 January and they were all still there. Suddenly on 2 - 4 Feb, two weeks later
and the same time you two were having disagreements with him elsewhere, is when you and Locke edit warred with him about it. Go figure that one too.
I know, it had absolutely nothing to do with your disagreements elsewhere and you and Locke have been stalwart stewards of keeping fair use images out of the user space....riiiight.
What's funny is I do have a reputation regarding fair use images and yet I didn't see the need to edit war with him on his own user page, I asked him to get rid of them and continued to follow up on it.
-- Wgfinley 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
David Levy has acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions and harassed Netoholic (see above sections) and probably deserves at least a reprimand.
He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week,
despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements.
He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.
These comments or edits were made only a short time after Netoholic made his edit. These are pages that David had never edited or been involved with before (and unlikely Watchlisted).
per discussion elsewhere, i've removed characterization of myself, as well as my edits, and information unrelated to this dispute. if you would like to dispute the rest of that material, please do so in a different forum, or agree to open the scope of this dispute to include that data. also, go ahead and revert if you like, and re-edit to accomplish same. however, i want to limit the scope so that i am uninvolved in this discussion unless you would like otherwise. ... aa: talk 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Those involved will point out that previously Neto had been asked to remove them, that isn't the point,
the point is that Locke, David, crotalus and Radiant all got involved in this matter 2 Feb - 4 Feb when they just so happened to be elevating totally unrelated disputed at AUM and Infobox.
The next fantastic piece of wikilawyering is that Neto didn't take the images down after I asked him, he replaced them.
The images involved were removed, period.
This utterly ridiculous statement below that he didn't take them down is emblematic of how blinded by the dispute they are and the type of ridiculous assaults back and forth between these parties that happens almost every day. So intent are they in finding fault with Neto they are reduced to contend that replacing images with acceptable ones somehow doesn't achieve the goal of complying with not having "Fair Use" images in the user space.
The point is I was the first one to point the issues out to Neto before taking it upon myself to edit his user page
(always in bad taste and due to cause issues),
I pointed out the issues with the images and answered his questions
and he removed them and replaced them with acceptable images of his own volition.
David, if you are going to stick with this position that changing images to acceptable ones does not in fact achieve the same goal of removing the fair use ones (since, technically, the fair use ones are GONE and now non-fair use ones are there) there really is no hope for you. As this entire rant demonstrates, I think you lost any objectivity in this a long long time ago.
By the way, pay close attention here -- see this diff?? Notice how the Ferrigno image and the cowbell image WERE THERE (Alkivar put them back, yes they are inline, no, I don't care, he still removed the reference to them) and then Neto removed them and replaced them with acceptable images? Check one more thing, the time, the time was 4 February @ 11:49, I had asked him to remove them on 4 February @ 01:28 [1], that would be before 11:49
and at the time I asked him they WERE STILL THERE, not inline.
The point, which you seem to continue to miss is one you make so well yourself -- seven other people tried to get him to remove them and he kept putting them back. When I asked him, and was polite about it and not a dick about it and just removing them without working it out with him, they were replaced with acceptable images and haven't come back.
Go figure. I wouldn't expect you to understand though given your attitude toward Neto.
Finally, the last time anyone worried about it was 19 January and they were all still there. Suddenly on 2 - 4 Feb, two weeks later
and the same time you two were having disagreements with him elsewhere, is when you and Locke edit warred with him about it. Go figure that one too.
I know, it had absolutely nothing to do with your disagreements elsewhere and you and Locke have been stalwart stewards of keeping fair use images out of the user space....riiiight.
What's funny is I do have a reputation regarding fair use images and yet I didn't see the need to edit war with him on his own user page, I asked him to get rid of them and continued to follow up on it.
-- Wgfinley 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
David Levy has acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions and harassed Netoholic (see above sections) and probably deserves at least a reprimand.
He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week,
despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements.
He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.
These comments or edits were made only a short time after Netoholic made his edit. These are pages that David had never edited or been involved with before (and unlikely Watchlisted).