User talk:Grace Note/Archive October-December 2005

Your vote needed

Hey, GN. POV matter at [1]. Thanks.

Marsden 13:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Warning

Since it's clear, from your contributions under both this name and your previous name, that you are an intractable edit warrior, I'm letting you know right now - if you move the Yom Kippur War article again, I'm going to file another request for arbitration against you (and not just pertaining to that article but all your POV pushing on middle eastern topics). →Raul654 06:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM (requested moves) listing for Yom Kippur War

Hello,

I've noticed the renames back and forth, and have now listed your desired rename at Wikipedia:Requested moves. WP:RM is a standard mechanism for moves that are not straightforward for some particular reason (technical issues requiring admin deletion of the target, or controversy), and a good way to gather broader feedback. -- Curps 07:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why wikipedia doesn't use "occupied"

Actually, I think it's wholly an accident that "Occupied" is no longer in the title of our article on the occupied territories. There used to be an article that was called Occupation of the Palestinian territories. Marsden didn't like that article, and started Occupied Territories (Israeli). These two articles were then merged by Brian Tvedt who, so far as I'm aware, doesn't oppose use of "occupied" in the title, to the current location because it would be "NPOV." Slim and Jay have argued against including "occupation" in the title, but they did not cause it to be at this location. Beyond this, of course Slim and Jay do a lot of pro-Israel POV pushing, and, as I've said before, I often get frustrated at it. But I've also seen both of them editing in non-Israel-related contexts, and both of them do a lot of good work. Do I think that their edits on Israel-related subjects are helpful? Very frequently not, and quite frequently I think they're damaging to wikipedia. Forcing me to find Richard Pipes's autobiography, when another editor already found it, just to quote from it and prove that Daniel Pipes's mother was a Jew, and then, even after this, trying to prevent this information from being included in the article, was extremely annoying. But assuming good faith is not the same thing as assuming that an editor is doing the right thing in every given situation. Obviously, I don't think Slim and Jay are right about Israel subjects on wikipedia. But I do think that they genuinely see what they're doing as being about insuring that Wikipedia isn't biased against the Israeli POV. I think their perception of this is skewed, but I still think they are acting in good faith. That is to say - whatever the results of their actions, their motives are to protect wikipedia from POV. This is an admirable motive, even if we think that they are drastically wrong in their interpretation of this. Even if the effect of their activities can in some cases become alarmingly close to that of POV-pushing, it does not arise out of the same motives as the genuine POV pusher, who sees their purpose on wikipedia as being to spread their POV.

Anyway, maybe I am being naive. I do think that both Jay and Slim could stand to take some time off from their self-appointed roles as guardians of all things Israel-related. But I don't see how attacking them is going to make articles get better. The only way to improve these articles is going to be to make persuasive arguments as to why they are wrong, and convince other people of it. john k 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Pure Wiki Deletion System

Hi!

I noticed you seemed to be a supporter of the Pure Wiki Deletion System. They've copied it over into the wikipedia space now, at WP:PWDS, and are looking for supporters to add their name to gauge support. If you know of others who think this is a good idea, you might send them over, too. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal!

Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal Erwin

Sock

Amorpheous Snowspinner 01:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Issue on images still unresolved

I appreciate your inputs in Image talk:Monkey3.jpg and I agree once in a while I might sound rude (purely unintentional, since I put facts blantly). But SlimVirgin is abusing his admin power to overrule anyone.

Slim is not a "he". Given that she named herself after a Javanese princess, perhaps you could take the hint and note that she's a woman. Also, I don't think you were simply blunt. I think you were rude to Slim. I recognise it's a fine line but given that I've mentioned it to you, perhaps you'll take more care to stay on the right side of it?

She has suggested in an email to me, that she is in talks with another editor. Now, I don't know who this other editor and i certainly don't like this secrecy. Instead of having a discussion on this, she wants to finish the matter begind closed doors. She could've atleast told me who this reputed editor was to let me have a word with him/her.

Perhaps she is seeking guidance on how she should approach you and wants that to be untainted by your input. I think that would be reasonable. I have a high regard for Slim and I don't think she would have a nefarious purpose in speaking to a third party.

Inso far as the images are concerned, I had stated to her a couple of images on one issue (animal rights) is ok, but she insists she needs to showcase the entire album provided by PETA and its assocites.

So you have a dispute. You need to recognise that you are not necessarily right! You disagree about how many images are necessary. I feel that you have to allow that your disagreement might be fuelled by your political differences as much as how you interpret the image policy.

This should could easily achieve by providing an external link to the images provided by a controversial organization.

The BUAV is not a "controversial organisation". It is a highly respected body, whose voice is listened to in all circles of British society. A viewpoint doesn't become "controversial" just because you don't share it.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have extreme viewpoints -

But you expect it to reflect your viewpoint.

thus I requested her to limit her fair use policy in this regard to 2-3 images which can be used across similar articles. this she refuses.

I don't see how it is any fairer to use one, two or ten images in this instance. While I agree that Slim could have taken more care to provide a rationale for using the images, I simply don't feel that your argument about how many she should have used has much weight. One factor in deciding fair use is how much of a thing you use, that's true, but it's only one factor, and obviously, each picture is a separate case to be considered as well as part of a whole.

As far as the other images, some are on personalities she claims have "agreed" to use their photos here. Unless she gets a written consent and a permission how can I believe.

First of all, you can believe Slim because you assume good faith. Perhaps you're not aware of that policy. Yes, you can ask Slim to provide evidence of that, but your assumption should be that she has in fact acquired that agreement. Harassing another editor to provide evidence to your satisfaction and insisting you won't believe them until they have do not show an assumption of good faith.

Once I pointed out that {permission} photos would be deleted anyway, she backed off and argued that it be kept on the grounds of fair use asking me to trust her.

Yes, okay. Trust her AND ask for proof.

Both of us are editing in good faith, but one of us has power and a circle of friends to back her while the other (me) relies on the hope that ppl. like you will help me out in this.

I'd urge you to rely on the issues rather than the personalities. Yes, Slim does have powerful friends, who will back her regardless, but you should still do your best to make it about the issue in question and not about her.

If she gets away with this and sets a precedence then I'm afraid there are hordes of copyviolaters straining at the leashes to bomb Wikipedia with copyrighted information.

I think that's a bit dramatic but I agree that she has to obey the rules, which exist for good reason, and shouldn't be given a pass just because she is friends with the arbcom. However, she is not a "copyviolater" trying to destroy Wikipedia. Partly, I think she simply didn't understand your problem, and that was in part a failure of your communication, and partly she has become too used to having her views echoed by her friends and doesn't handle disagreement well. So perhaps you could recognise that and be more helpful than combative? I know it's hard. I find the establishment hard to deal with sometimes. They tend to say "Wikipedia thinks this..." when they mean "My friends think this..." They forget the diversity and multiplicity of opinion that exists here and live in an echo chamber because they know they are empowered and do not need to pay any attention to that diversity to get what they want.

fyi, 70% of her images are tagged as fair use without providing a single rationale (few of them fall under the subcategories like stamp, logo etc. where it's easy to understand).

Yes. But as I noted, plain common sense would direct you to understand that fair use is being made of the photos. They are the product of a not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to educate people about animal torture. Having their material illustrate an encyclopaedia article about animal torture would clearly suit their purpose, as Slim pointed out to you, I believe. Ignoring that makes your approach seem malicious. I think Slim is in part bewildered by your making such a huge, urgent issue out of it, when the chances of legal dispute are so very small. So perhaps we could agree that Slim should provide rationales in due course, and preferably have the photos released under a suitable licence, but in the meantime there's no particular urgency to re-tag them or to insist on rapid action? Surely a commitment to act would be sufficient.

She also keeps reverting to her tags, violating all admin rules.

That's another issue. I think Slim is one of many admins who would be better off not having the powers, because they lead her into disputes of this nature, where the issue all too rapidly becomes her and not her edits, which is unfortunate.

As it stands I'm erring on the side of caution, while Slim wants to stretch the boundry of "fair use". Tx 4 ur interest in this. Idleguy 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you're being very cautious, and I think caution is right, as I noted. However, I think in the case of the BUAV images in particular that they are clearly "fairly used". You have to ignore their provenance to think otherwise. I can see from your discussion with her that Slim was not very successful in communicating her point of view, because she interpreted legitimate concern over copyright for a personal attack, largely because, I think, you didn't take into account the source of the photos and their likely reaction to their being in WP. Still, I do agree that she should ask for confirmation from BUAV that they are cool with our using the photos; but I think you should lay off them (and her) so long as she has made the commitment to acquire that confirmation. (this message copied to Slim's talkpage for her notice. Grace Note 01:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSort Project

Hey, the WikiSort Project has begun! Come on over and check it out!the1physicist 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Epictetus

Grace Note, I LOVE that quote on your user page. I'm not wikistalking or anything : ) just doing one of my random walk arounds, and I hope you don't mind, but I had to comment. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA, it passed today after a lot of controversy, but I appreciated your vote of confidence! Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for multiple personal attacks

I've blocked you for three hours for multiple disruptive personal attacks. See [2] and [3] (the bottom comment). Please cease these attacks when your block is over. Carbonite | Talk 14:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, an apology could be a nice idea. Halibutt 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - your behaviour was unacceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have lengthened this block to 1 week in accordance with blocking policy since even after being blocked your behavior continued via email as reported at WP:AN/I##User:Grace_Note where I have noted the extension on the block as well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, your comments were completely unacceptable, and an apology would be in order. — Matt Crypto 21:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologise to someone who publishes private correspondence? You're dreaming. Another admin who abuses his powers to settle a score. Perhaps he should have read and considered my email instead of showing it to others. It's become the go here that admins use their powers to punish editors whose behaviour they disapprove of. All you need is for Raul to call you a troll (which anyone who's tangled with him knows means "someone I disagree with") and you've got the black spot. It's astonishing that some guy lengthened my block for something not even on Wikipedia! While at the same time, a guy who has told multiple editors to fuck off is having admins endorse his behaviour. Could I not just have gone without my cookie? My apologies to Halibutt for the personal attack though. 203.206.87.165 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect an apology nor do I want one, you haven't done anything to me. In regards to the email read the noticeboard reply that I posted on it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now cited at http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm.

Thanks for your contribution on schapelle corby page

Hey I read the article which i found to be quite okay/good and looked over the talk page and noticed you did a lot of work enforcing NPOV. Well done and thankyou. I was expecting that article to be a mess

Thanks

Thanks for your concern re the circ debate. I thought a subpage of that article's talk page would be less disruptive than the main talk section, but you're right - my user page is better still. Jakew 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I do not disagree with the move, I would like to point out that we were trying to work out a consensus - on the circumcision article. The issue was not his or mine especially (although, I have started it) but an issue about circumcision itself.Dabljuh 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's anyone's particular issue, only that WP is not an appropriate venue for anyone to work out their "issues". -- GN

you?

Hi. Did you make the unsigned comment on my user page? It had an IP address only, but they signed using your name. It was followed up less than a minute later by 2 acts of vandalism from a 2nd IP address, thus making me think that perhaps someone was impersonating you. Please advise. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay no worries. By the way, the bans were lifted. I made my own page about the whole episode here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister that you might be interested in reading. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I commented on the admin noticeboard. Frankly, I think that the whole sockpuppet thing is made too much an issue of by some editors. Who cares whether someone "looks like they have more support than they do"? I regularly take on whole gangs. I mostly lose, but I sometimes get a very decent win. Those who give a shit about sockpuppets are the same who think that being in a majority makes them right. It doesn't. Being right makes you right. Being in a majority means you're still wrong but you have more company. Still, it's all fun. Keeps you guys busy and off the streets. -- Grace Note

By the way, can you log in a bit when editing? It'd just make it easier to reply to you.

Oh, and in regards to the harassment (Wikistalking), I just find it laughable, and I really don't see the need to defend myself. Quite frankly, I think that the guy (1st one) is completely insane.

By his logic, he feels the need to defend himself from what he deems "false accusations of harassing me on my talk page" by harassing me on my talk page. Similarly, he feels the need to defend himself from what he deems "false accusations of wikistalking me by harassing me on other users' talk pages" by harassing me on other people's talk pages. And lastly, he feels the need to defend himself from what he deems "false accusations of threatening me" by threatening me. The guy is a nutter. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And with regards to the editors "ganging up" I think its ridiculous. So Wikipedia is meant to be about consensus. "AFD is not a vote". So then why is it wrong to use more than one account to argue something? Why get banned for it? I don't see meat puppets who vote keep in AFDs getting banned. Its the argument that should matter, not the popularity of it - it should be about being right or wrong, not being popular. I just think its silly. Anyway, their bans got reversed, and I think I had a big part in that happening, per the page, if nothing else. So, whilst I inherited a 2nd Wikistalker as a direct result of it, and the 1st one got about 10 times worse than they were before, well, at least I can feel that its worth it. Still doesn't make me feel good about being harassed though. I am getting to the stage now of just asking for him to be banned outright. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Haizum

Did you post: "Guys, chill out. This is a bit of a storm in a teacup. Most disputes here are to start with. If you all just took a step back and thought "Well, probably User:X is okay", you'd get over it. And don't you feel this whole RFC thing is a bit like "telling tales to teacher"? I do. If you're so very insulted by the stuff you're reporting here, you probably shouldn't be wandering around the Net without adult supervision. Haizum, try to be nice though. There's no need to go off at people like that."

There's an anon claiming to be you who posted that on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum...If that's you....you can't be serious....look at his userpage...or his talk page...freestylefrappe 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Grace. Forget about looking at Haizum's talk page, as it's been refactored by Haizum and does not reflect the comments that were originally made. If you are sincerely interested, please have a look at the edit history for Haizum's talk page. Happy Holidays. --Viriditas 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OMG Veriditas/Freestylefrappe, you've discovered another one of my alleged tofumeatsock-puppets! I've been caught red-handed! Haizum 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Me

What? Is Viriditas saying I deleted my own comments? Ha! What a joke. If I did, it was only to remove clutter on my talk page, not to hide from my own statements. Go ahead, check the history.

Viriditas, how about you work on something else?

Haizum 07:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also interesting how these editors and their chums don't mind bashing the workings of the United States government yet have a problem with me criticizing the workings of Wikipedia.org. Typical, "I know what's best for you," elitism. Haizum 07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)