User talk:Ranze: Difference between revisions

Category:Raped characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ― Padenton|✉ 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:LeslieJonesComedian.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LeslieJonesComedian.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jones (actor)

Still having trouble understanding this free thing. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/about shows free images of all the current SNL cast members so would http://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/styles/nbc_person_teaser/public/images/2014/10/31/leslie_jones_1050x1050.jpg qualify as a free image since it is displayed there and this isn't a pay-site? Ranze (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately copyright rules are rather confusing. The image you point out is copyrighted. In fact any image created by anyone is copyrighted. Images are only freely licensed if

The image is sufficiently old (pre 1923 in the United states mostly but the rules are very complicated)
If it was created by the US government, or other entity that similar rules apply to.
The original creator agrees to release it under a free licence.

In this case the image was created by NBC (from an original like [1]and they retain the copyright, and unless they explicitly state that they are releasing the image under a free license we can't use it. What we need is someone to take a photo of her and release it under a license that works here (see the freely licensed tag). - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn

We've had many problems with people, purposely or not, using Wikipedia as a forum to spread unflattering, inaccurate, or libelous information about living individuals, a matter we take very seriously. I'm sure it is not your intent to do this, however, but editors choosing to edit sensitive and controversial articles like this one must take care when dealing with such matters, especially on an article that has been a trouble spot for this very thing for many months. You have edited articles related to Gamergate as early as September, when you were alerted about the sanctions on this article, so you have had time to familiarize yourself with these issues. Accordingly, I am imposing for a period of 12 months the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." This ban will be lifted when you can demonstrate an ability to deal with sensitive issues regarding living individuals in other areas of the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it from a third party, don't dig yourself into a larger hole, man. Just don't edit GamerGate stuff or things related to gender controversies. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about the Divas Division. But if I were an admin, seeing you writing on the Divas Division, I would be much harsher if I saw you had just created a redirect to Milo Y. It's related, in a sense. Plus, if you hate the main roster Divas, you're better off watching the NXT women's division or Lucha Underground, where they don't split divisions by sex and intergender is the norm. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cultural communism

The article Cultural communism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This isn't disambiguating between things that are on Wikipedia. It's one link that includes "cultural" in it in front of a form of communism (Marxism), which leads to a redirect, and three items that consist of links to other forms of communism with the word "cultural" inserted in front of them without explanation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Request

Hi. I've requested that a discretionary sanction against you be enforced here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids and titillation

Hi Ranze, to reply to your comments on my talkpage.

Firstly, If you wonder where the bar is as regards something being a tabloid, well the reliable sources noticeboard is a good place to get a second opinion as to whether a particular new source can be treated as reliable or as a tabloid re a particular topic. I gather that some tabloids can be trusted in their sports coverage. But we don't need to set some sort of boundary between tabloids and blogs if we aren't going to use either, and as I said before if the tabloids aren't covering something then we probably should not either.

Secondly, what is common knowledge to you may not be common knowledge to others, and whilst I'd call myself a gamer, I never really made the transition to computer games. Nor do I follow twitter. So though I can guess what you are talking about from the examples you gave, it wasn't something that I knew about.

More broadly I can see from earlier posts that others have already topic banned you from the article in question. May I suggest you reflect on that during your ban. Regards Ϣere SpielChequers 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: Reflecting sounds meaningless, I think about everything I read, and to learn things I need to be directed where to read. The topic-ban is unjustly wide in scope and lasts too long IMO when it's based on discussing sourced things on a talk page, where we're supposed to, rather than the article. Ranze (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented in the discussions on the topic ban, but it seems to me to be quite tightly focussed, but then most of my edits would fall well outside it. May I suggest that you shift your attention to some subject far removed from the area of the topic ban? There are still numerous iron age hillforts, medieval antiquities and even sofets of Carthage that don't even have a stub article here. Ϣere SpielChequers 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: quite tightly focussed would apply if it was just to the biography article which all the disputes are centered on. Instead it broadly applies to anything technological that could be associated with a video game or any song, TV show, person, site, event where gender might plausibly be mentioned in some form. If it's not so broad then no guidelines exist to know where I can step. I am not an expert on forts/sofets/antiquities, even if I could find info on them I don't think I could find sources to prevent articles on them getting deleted by the new article cullers these days. Less likelihood of work getting deleted if you contribute to existing ones. Ranze (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ranze, I agree with you on the problems of creating new articles, we have some very odd tags applied at new page patrol. However there are plenty of exiting articles that can be worked on amongst our more than four million articles. As to how wide the GG restrictions go, the article on Ms Quinn is one of the core articles in the GamerGate saga. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per the AE complaint

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Per the AE complaint about violation of your topic ban from Gamergate. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 {{ping|WereSpielChequers}} ''quite tightly focussed'' would apply if it was just to the biography article which all the disputes are centered on. Instead it broadly applies to anything technological that could be associated with a video game or any song, TV show, person, site, event where gender might plausibly be mentioned in some form. If it's not so broad then no guidelines exist to know where I can step. I am not an expert on forts/sofets/antiquities, even if I could find info on them I don't think I could find sources to prevent articles on them getting deleted by the new article cullers these days. Less likelihood of work getting deleted if you contribute to existing ones. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze#top|talk]]) 03:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 :Hi Ranze, I agree with you on the problems of creating new articles, we have some very odd tags applied at new page patrol. However there are plenty of exiting articles that can be worked on amongst our more than four million articles. As to how wide the GG restrictions go,  the article on Ms Quinn is one of the core articles in the GamerGate saga. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 09:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
+== Blocked per the AE complaint ==
+<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/EdJohnston|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp; <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators as follows]]: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=660254419&oldid=660237345 the AE complaint] about violation of your topic ban from Gamergate. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)