User talk:Zero1328

[ This is my Talk page. ] [ Feel free to talk to me. ] [ See my Profile here. ][ These are my contributions. ][ See my Workshed here. ]

More pics on propaganda in Vietnam

Hi, im going to create a page named Propaganda in Vietnam and looking for some pictures. Could you please tell me where to get them on wiki? Thanks--Trananh1980 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Review

There is a dispute as to whether when a group of people are working on a GA review, the nominator can unilaterally withdraw the nomination or all active editors should be consulted to see if any of them want to take over. In this case, I discussed it with the nominator, and then canvassed the other active editors to see whether they wanted to continue. I then closed the review after the canvass and believe the review should reflect that was what occurred. We can not change what happened or whether misunderstandings occurred, but we should not try to hide what happened. Some people believed that I was correct in consulting the other editors before failing the review, other people believe that a nominator has the absolute and instantaneous right to close a review. But the exchange as to which is the correct approach should be discussed fully on the article talk page, rather than a slow-paced editor war on the transcluded review page without any discussion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not hidden. It's still there in the history, and you still need to look at the history and edit summaries to get the whole story, anyway. While the time of when the GAN was closed could be debated, the more important point is that you edited a page involved in your RFC. You should not have touched it at all, for any reason. Thus, I reverted it to geometry guy's decision. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) With all due respect, I did not initiate an edit, I merely restored a deletion. Please refer me to the source of your statement, "You should not have touched [a page involved in your RFC] at all, for any reason." I don't see where the source to which you are referring. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPNO provides:

"Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

• Be precise in quoting others.
• When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
• Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at your RFC. I've stated that you should not be touching anything until the RFC is finished. Yes, you restored some things, but the history and diffs are still there, regardless. Just leave it alone for now. Take care of your RFC first. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. However, I am also asking the basis or source to which you were referring. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by source. If you mean "a page involved in your RFC", just look at your RFC. Your behaviour on Netball is involved. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it appeared that you were invoking some rule or policy regarding RFC/Us. Is there any source for your belief that editors cannot conduct reviews while an RFC/U is pending? I have voluntarily agreed to refrain from reviewing articles nominated by Dough, Rschen and Mitch while the RFC/U is pending, but that is based on conflict of interest principles. I am open minded and want to understand the basis for your position. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's more of a logical conclusion or common sense thing, rather than a rule. The RFC has evolved to the point where your overall behaviour towards reviews is under question. It's not just about specific articles now; it's about your behaviour. This is the period where you should be stepping back to reflect upon and improve it. It's just like a disputed article; you need to stop working, and sort it out. Behaviour is the same.

By continuing your reviews during the scrutiny, you're seriously damaging your credibility as a GA reviewer, since it looks like you're not paying attention to the discussion. Even if it's as minor as not respecting the closure of a GAN. Also, depending on the results, all the reviews you made during this RFC will have to be re-evaluated for better or worse. You're making your own mess. - Zero1328_Talk? 07:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the opposite is true. I am being falsely accused of being prejudiced against articles covering very short highways and of somehow refusing to review them. What better way to demonstrate that the accusation is false that to pleasantly review articles about very short highways without fuss or complaint about their length? In effect, you are proposing to ask me to adopt the conduct that would confirm their false accusation. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not confirming it. It's not, not confirming it, either. It's about respecting the discussion. Think of an edit war or any dispute on an article. You don't continue editing it; both sides temporarily stop the work, and start talking, no matter who is actually right. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. I don't know. It's this "maybe" that should be making you stop and re-evaluate what you're doing, not the accusation. - Zero1328 _Talk? 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Zero1328, I question whether an "edit war" is the best analogy for what is happening here. I take the view that Wikipedia does not have "walled gardens" that that GA and FA are two of many things that all subject areas share in common, and can bring the community together for interplay between subject matter experts from different backgrounds. There are a few people who may be advocating a "walled garden" approach, asserting WP:OWNership over article that they did not even research or write. Suddenly, when these articles are brought nominated for GA, they say "How dare you! I have rules over what can be nominated for GA and what an article like History of Maryland Route 200 can contain." The problem is that the GA criteria are set by community-wide consensus, not USRD consensus. So, by advocating that we build a walled garden during the duration of the RFC/U, you are taking sides in that dispute. On the other hand, I can understand that we want to keep people productive and happy and seek to minimize wikidrama. That is why I voluntarily agreed not to review any articles nominated by the three editors during the RFC/U and offered to make that a permanent arrangement. Certainly, if you can broker a deal where everyone involved in either netball or USRD stops all work in those areas for a few weeks, I would be willing to join your détente. But I am not sure it would be attainable. Racepacket (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Citadel destroyed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Citadel destroyed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

Brisbane Meetup Next: October 9, 2011 - Lunch @ Southbank Last: June 26, 2011 - BBQ @ Southbank

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Wikimedians to the Games

I'd like to invite you to participate Wikimedians to the Games :) It is a great opportunity to help improve Australian related content, and potentially to travel to attend the second biggest sporting event of the year. As you're an existing Wikipedian editor, you should have some advantage because you should know how to contribute and improve articles already. :) If you get to a certain point threshold, there is also a possiblity to travel to Canberra to attend a workshop at the Australian Institute of Sport. --LauraHale (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)