User talk:Geni

Mig 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5

new comments at the bottem of the page please

Image:Microscope.jpg

Who is the author of this image?Geni 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Wheeler (Zephyris). See history. -- Selket ^Talk 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

so why doesn't it ssay that on commons?Geni 00:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It says that it came from the en Wikipedia. I thought that was sufficient to direct people to the history. If you know a better way, please fix the commons page to look the way you want it to. --Selket ^Talk 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When?

Enough lounging about in the doghouse already. When can we nominate you for admin again? Haukur 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we there yet? Haukur 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No.Geni 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner

Hey. I just noticed the other day the great work you did on the fromowner process. I had no idea such things were possible, but it got me to thinking. One of the biggest complaints I get is that the image upload process is too complicated. Do you know if any thought has been given to simplifying the whole thing? Special:Upload, rather than having lots of boxes to read and then a single licensing drop down with a kazillion choices, could have three links to choose from: (1) I am uploading a picture that I, personally, created. (2) I am uploading a picture that I found on a website. (3) I am uploading a picture that was made before 1923, is a work of the US government, or otherwise in the public domain. Each of those choices could then offer you something similar to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner in terms of its simplicity. --BigDT 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... just like that ... except we could put those choices at Special:Upload itself instead of another page. I'm inclined to do a prototype to try it out. If I confine anything I do to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/prototype, MediaWiki:Licenses/prototype, etc, can I make a prototype and have it not affect anything else? (Obviously, breaking existing functionality would be a bad thing.) --BigDT 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what changes they are planning? How about, as an alternative, having the choices up at the top of Special:Upload, then saying, "or scroll down to use the advanced form"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Can you take a look at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext? This is the kind of thing I was thinking. --BigDT 14:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my hope was that the whole form would be a "trap form" kinda like we have the trap licenses now ... except that the trap form would explain in easy to understand language why what they are doing is counter tto our policies and ask them not to. The image backlog right now is untenable. The backlogs are steadily growing and on top of that, we have a record number of orphaned images again. My hope is that by having separate pages specifically geared towards what the person is trying to upload, we can stem the tide of some of the unusable images. --BigDT 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I fully agree ... I just want to have something to bring there first. ;) Once I put together the prototype (in userspace), I will bring it there and post messages on the WP:IUP and WP:FAIR talk pages. --BigDT 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Waterways stub template

Thank you for your comments about the proposed deletion of {{UK-waterway-stub}} . If you meant that as a vote to keep, please clarify, by adding "Keep", as on my comments. Andy Mabbett 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Headbg.jpg

I think I got what you're saying there, but I was wondering if you could elaborate further if I didn't get it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Logo

There were several suggestions for using the Wikipedia logo at Talk:Logo, mostly due to the incidental potential for endorsement. Being that the Wikipedia logo, while copyrighted, was being used in the context of a Wikimedia project, I did not think that it was such a big deal. Using the Debian logo has its caveats as well, and I think that using a free-use logo that is unaffiliated with a company or project would be more appropriate. I'll look for some alternatives, but for now I think that something like Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg would be more fitting than the Debian logo. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Hi. I can't seem to get the pic inside the infobox in the Corey Clark article. Can you help? Thanks. Nightscream 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help geni it looks a lot better like that. Liaishard 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. One thing though: Because of its natural small size, it looks pixelated now. Can you resize it a bit smaller, as it was in previous edits? Thanks again. Nightscream 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. It was obtained by User:Liaishard, who asserted that she found it at a Corey Clark website, and got permission for its use from its copyright owner. The original was uploaded by her; I just tried to re-upload it in order to remove the underscore from its filename, theorizing that that was what was causing the difficulty in formatting it into the Infobox (a theory that turned out to be false). Perhaps she could give greater insight into its origin, so maybe you should ask her. Nightscream 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doublepluspolicy

If you're doing this in conjunction with devs, Fromowner technically has the force of "policy" on-wiki (though you might want to avoid stepping on too many toes, else you'll have some fun times in later projects ;-) ). Also, if Fromowner were to be coordinated with the foundation, your actions once again would be policy-ish.

Can you provide links, attestations or further data for either? If so, I shall close the MFD.

--Kim Bruning 13:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Make that triple, if you can link to mailing list discussions (tangential or direct). Despite the oldness and signal-to-noise ratio, wikien-l can still form policy. --Kim Bruning 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you an Admin?

If not, don't send me anymore admonitions. Thanks.

• And stop following me around.

Your vandalism of the "List of banned books" article is unforgivable. Geni, rot in hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.77.59 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

• I see I'm not the only one who has been harangued by this Geni person.

Kwiatkowski image

What is your evidence that the publisher holds exclusive rights to that image? As you can see from this Kwiatkowski article published on LRC today, she has provided this image to LRC as a publicity shot. They've released it on her behalf under the GFDL. If you'd like me to send confirmation on this to the permissions folks (like I did for History of Money and Banking in the United States), I'd be happy to, but I've worked with them before on content released from LRC and Mises.org and I have a standing agreement from LvMI and LRC authorizing me to release content under the GFDL. I'd be happy to email the permissions folks from my mises.org email address to clarify this. :) DickClarkMises 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just emailed permissions notifying them that the image has been released under the GFDL. Cheers, DickClarkMises 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fobuild

Geni, Nice looking page, but ran in to an issue, when using images in the MediaWiki space we should have a local copy uploaded and indef protected to prevent vandalism. I can't do this from where I am right now but should be able to in a day or two if it's still outstanding. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Got your reply, that doesn't fix the problem, I'll try to get to it this week. The problem is beansy. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image change

Please see Image talk:Replace this image1.svg. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ads.jpg

Hello, Geni. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ads.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Geni/archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

photon belt

Hi. I noticed you started the deleted The Photon Belt and I am trying to get it resurrected and reinstated. See progress thus far on my user page. -Eep² 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Karen Kwiatkowski.jpg

Just to follow up on our previous discussion, please note that confirmation of this image's release under the GFDL may be found under OTRS Ticket#2007050310007733. Cheers, DickClarkMises 19:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG

I'M the one who took the picture!!! SFTVLGUY2 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-Pilotguy hold short 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also only see three reverts. Of course edit-warring can be blockable even absent a technical 3RR violation, but I don't see aggravating factors that would warrant a block in this case. Requesting comment from the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From 3RR: Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. Edit warring is edit warring. Considering you were reverting Jimbo, and didn't bother to find out his reasoning prior to reverting three times, I'd say that could be considered a wee tad disruptive. You could have discussed first, or even better, instead of, edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to do both at the same time [1][2] but ya I did go to talk first and only continued to revert when people ignored that. The issue that it is jimbo who attempted to introduce flawed policy without discussion should be of no consequence.Geni 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've poked ANI about this. Let's see what they have to say. -Pilotguy hold short

You don't think it might have been a good idea to do that before hand? Aparently that is what people object to in my case. In any case blocks are meant to be preventative and given my general wikipedia philosophy it would be extream unlikely I would go beyond 3 reverts (heh after all I was the main inforcer of that policy back in the day).Geni 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would unblock, which is not to say I endorse the approach you took to editing the article, but I seem to be in the minority camp thus far. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni, what exactly were you thinking would happen? That all would be smiles and roses after reverting Jimbo's edits? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a comment from the peanut gallery, my own opinion echoes that of Newyorkbrad's - I think a direct approach or an appeal might have been the better way to go. Also, to SWATjester, he didn't revert Mr. Wales' edits - he simply removed content added by him once previously and did not engage in an edit war with him; this is a wiki, after all, and people are certainly allowed to tweak pages gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, based on a lack of consensus for the block. I would suggest you try and work with Jimbo, though, rather than just trying to exercise veto-by-revert. --Michael Snow 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG

User SFTVLGUY2 did NOT take the photo of Charles Nelson Reilly. I took that photo in November 2000 at Musso & Frank's Grill in Hollywood. I have no problem with releasing it into the public domain since it is a snapshot, but I made a correction on the JPG page correctly attributing the photo to myself. My name is Steve Schalchlin and I am an early Internet diarist, off-Broadway composer and longtime friend of Charles Nelson Reilly.

Image:forthenrymall.jpg

I took the picture in like 2005. later summer. I had borrowed a camera from a friend. I think it was a canon. It was taken in the parking lot along Fort Henry Drive. I will be getting some updated photo's. I have them now, and am working on them. They will be added soon.

Sorry dont know for sure the date, but it was around late summer 2005.

Witney page

Just a quick question, what was your reasoning for removing the link by dickiuk on the witney page? Georgeryall 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) fair enough Georgeryall 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Link removal

Dear Geni

Thank you for messaging me on 29th-May-2007 regarding some links I placed on Wiki. Your message states that the links are may not be appropriate external links for Wiki.

I apologise if this update caused you any problems and would ask for your guidance as I believe that the links are valid and do meet the Wiki external links guidelines

I believe that these links are relevant and informative and meet the guidelines. I would ask that the Wiki editors review them, here are two examples:
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/marham
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/alderholt

I was adding the links to official Town, Parish and Community Councils to Wiki articles providing information on the Town or Parish. These website are hosted by The Local Channel and provided free of any charge to the Council only after the Council has formally adopted the site and it becomes their Official Council site.

I chose to add these links myself as the administrators for the Council site tend not to be technical. Their sites use a very simple content management system that only requires word skills and not web or HTML skills. I know Wiki is not difficult to use but felt that this would be beyond some of the Council site administrators.

I checked carefully the Wiki link guidelines please see the notes in red that relate to the topic in your guidelines. Please can you let me know where I have infringed any rules as I can not at this time see any problems relating to the links posted.

Many thanks

What should be linked 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. The links placed were to the official Parish, Town Council or Community council websites.

These sites contain a minimum of 20 pages of relevant information regarding the local community including the Local Council. This is only available from the council site.

Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The site contains Parish Council information that is not available anywhere else.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". These are the official council sites

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. The intention is to provide Wiki readers with a link to the official site and information unavailable anywhere else.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. The sites are free to the council and the reader. The reader has access to all of the Council sites hosted about 2698. Not all have the same level of content and therefore I chose only those with about 20 pages.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. A small amount of advertising that is relevant to the local area
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. No payment is required and anyone can see the entire site without the need to register.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. No restrictions of this nature exist on the site.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. This is not implemented on the site.
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. Does not apply in this case
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. This is a community based site providing local information it is completely different to those mentioned above.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Not applicable this site is an information portal.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Not linking to Wiki
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. These sites are directly related to the article as the site is an official Council site for the place the article is written about. --DickieUK 09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For removing the nonsense from my page! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Staropramen

This image is somewhat similar to mine. —AldeBaer 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Hi, as you know I closed the BJADODN discussion saying:

the proposal before this encyclopedia is to revive some material specifically chosen for its lack of encyclopedia signficance, and moreover material in conflict with the site license. As a community, we cannot do this without revoking the site license. If you want to do that, Wikipedia:Village pump is thataway, and jolly good luck to you.

You reverted the close, and that's not a problem. However, your reasoning , insofar as it is represented by the edit summary, troubles me. It says:

rv that is not a vaild closeure reason and you are too incolced in the debate to close

Firstly, could you explain why incompatibility with the site license is not a valid reason to discuss a request for undeletion?

Secondly, could you please explain how I am "too involved in the debate"? What debate? Who would you accept as a closer? --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No Free Image project

Geni:

Can you please direct me to the project page that is behind the "No Free Picture" project? Thanks! --AStanhope 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Frank took it and Westwood was dissolved. Zeality 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mid-2006; it was the same e-mail I sent to Raul for confirmation. It also grants usage of the other ones of his offices at Petroglyph. Zeality 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:TARDIS.jpg

Flicker clearly shows the image as licsenced under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 not Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.Geni 21:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I restored the speedy tag. —METS501 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:No Image

Oh, if you have a better version please upload it! I just had noticed the No free image one was pretty much only for article about people.

--IdLoveOne 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have recently been edit warring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In fact you have four reverts (in about an hour, I might add), repeatedly removing the sentence "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." [3] [4] [5] [6] You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR. On a policy page in particular, edit warring is unacceptable. Please use the talk page when things get heated, and read dispute resolution if you can't resolve it there. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geni (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

sigh.. Those are for the most part not reverts. They are edits to try and deal with the concerns of those who dissagree with me (obviouse since they refuse to debate this is tricky but I supose I should have had enough practice at that by now). As to dispute resolution well I would argue that this and this count although obviously there are limits to what can be done when the people who hold a different position do not take part

Decline reason:

Not following your reason for requesting to be unblocked Geni. Your reverted 4 times in 24 hours : Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, Revert 4. No one else reverted 4 time - SlimVirgin and Jossi are clearly within the rule so you don't appear to have been singled out unfairly. As a former admin you obviously are aware of the three revert rule. On what basis was the block unfair? WjBscribe 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposed revert one create an entire new section. supposed revert 2 creates a new paragraph 3 is a revert but in responce to an entirely flawed argument (WP:V does no mention external links) and was backed up with comment on talk page). Supposed revet 4 isn't a revert that is my intial edit. So we would appear to have one revert total with 2 if you really streach the rule. SlimVirgin reverted twice dirrect 3 if you streach the rule.Geni 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The reverts don't have to be identical - they all contained a common element - in all 4 instances your removed the words "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." To quote the WP:3RR: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. " In all 4 case your undid the addition of those words making this a pretty clear breach of 3RR to my eyes... WjBscribe 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok in your fourth supposed revert who's actions did I undo?Geni 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? At some point someone added that text - you undid their edit (in whole or part) and 3 subsequent restorations of that text... WjBscribe 23:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

yes because classing every remove of a bit of text as a revert falls under the "mind boggeling extream bit of rule lawyering that even Abraham Thornton would be impressed by" category.Geni 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - I thought your insistance that I name the precise editor who orginally added the text was one of the more extreme examples of rule lawyering I had come across... WjBscribe 23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

actualy that was an attempt to get you to realise the problem with your positon. For example you would consider this a revert thus pushing SlimVirgin up to 4 reverts in the last 24 hours.Geni 00:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really - its a rewrite - there doesn't seem to be a section of text she is removing or adding that she has removed or added 3 other times in the last 24 hours. In your case there is a clear progression. At some point someone adds the sentence in question. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. Jossi restores it. You remove it. Thats a pretty clear progression. I see nothing so clear cut in SlimVirgin's case. You could, and should, have stopped reverting while you discussed the change - it was after all you who wanted to change the page away from the status quo. On a policy page its rather expected that you gain a consensus to make changes (especially where the edit is disputed). WjBscribe 00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So mine was a rewrite combiened with modification to bring it inline with practice while adressing concerns. Discussion requires more than one person to be involved. If the people reverting me will not discuss there isn't much I can do. Oh and you want clear removal there you go and remeber it is well established it does not have to be the same material being reverted.Geni 00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, the administrators' noticeboard is not dispute resolution, and the point is for you to discuss instead of reverting, not in addition to it. When it is clear that your edits to a policy page are contested, you should talk it out, not keep making them. It looks like the other editors are taking part in the discussion, so I'm not sure what you mean, but other editors' lack of discussion is never justification for edit warring of any parties in any case. Dmcdevit·t 22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting. Ok lets try basic maths. My second comment was at 20:08 after that despite finding time to revert me twice the people who have dissagree with me have still not responded to it (I note you have not blocked them despite their direct reverting. Obvious I have't delt with 3RR in a long time but I recall back in the day there was a requirement to treat both sides equaly). If we look at User:Jossi where is the debate? hmm all we have are arguments by assertions which is about as far from debate as we can get Slimvirgin's comments have much the same issue (combiened with an ad hom) and do not adress my points so no debate there either. As to the disspute resolution what would you have me do? RFC doesn't have a section. The Mediation Cabal is article based and it is a bit early for arbcom (who in any case do not make policy).Geni 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You should know that edit warring is not excused by others' behavior, and is not justified by being "too early for arbcom" or MedCab being "article based". Please read WP:DR for some options, like soliciting third opinions and coming back to the article after cooling down. Dmcdevit·t 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule lawyering? can do it that way if you want. You can only block me for edit waring if you can show I was severely disrupting the project (that is the section it falls under). I wasn't (the section of policy isn't exactly regularly inforced). I think I have demonstraited I did solicit third opinions. Thidly my comments on others actions was a critism of your actions more than a defence of mine (combiened with a debunking of your claim that they people with different views were debateing).Geni 22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't asking for ruleslawyering. And yes, edit warring, which is nothing new for you, is disruptive. I am glad that you solicited third opinions, but you ought to do that not in combination with edit warring. Several rapidfire reverts in an hour is not conducive to the discussion you claim to have wanted. You could have even waited a whole day for comments from third parties. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The people with a different position to me found time to revert me. It is not unreasonable to expect them to have time to comment no? Remeber I was chanageing my edits rather than blunt force reverting. I wasn't aware one was meant to wait before trying new things. Oh disruptive isn't good enough policy requires "severely disrupting the project".Geni 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You were edit warring. Edit warring is prohibited. You know that. Stop wikilawyering. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then address my points.Geni 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers says 'hi'.Spaz Out Of Hell 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Police

I'm sorry, but I must inquire as to what motivates image purging. Half the British Parliament, including Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and Northern Ireland Minister Alan Johnson, have had their pictures removed on the grounds that the images came from the BBC. Widescale deletion has also been applied to official pictures of state governors in the US. I ask you, if this continues, how are we to maintain the quality of imagery expected of an encyclopedia? --JesseBHolmes 05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Policy2}}

Can I ask what the point of {{Policy2}} was? It seems to just be an alternately-phrased version of {{Policy}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is meant to demonstrait that the policy has not been put together in a bottom up style by the community without ever demonstraiting wide popular support and that it will continue to exist regardless of any consensus against it. It makes no judgements as to wether or not this is a good thing. Something simular was talked about with regards to the EDP thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)

I don't think making a less-strict-sounding policy tag for policies that are forced upon us by legal issues is a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy not forced on us by legal issues otherwise I could reduce the thing to about 3 lines (one paragraph max).Geni 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a rather glib dismissal of the complex issues of defamation and libel. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that we would only be looking into a fairly limited set of defences (person is dead public figure and truth) it is not an unreasonable aproach. OR just say "care must be taken to avoid writeing things that could result in a civil judgement being issued against you"

Of course none of the things you list have anything to do with the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section which if it were legaly based would have to be based on right of publicity and certian rights due to minors (strangely neither the word minor nor child appear on that page which for something supposed to be legaly based is a little odd).

In short:

WP:BLP as worded is not simply forced upon us by legal issues. It has never been limted to stuff forced upon us by legal issues. Please stop trying to claim otherwise (and if you need a legal reason look into some of the wording of florida's laws with regards to giving legal advice).Geni 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take my comments to mean that I want to get into a length discussion on the merits of or reasoning behind WP:BLP. My comments are merely limited to the fact that {{policy2}} seemed like a bad idea which was poorly implemented. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you are not going to try and defend your position with regards to BLP being law based than that is simply your unbacked opinion.Geni 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't care. What I do care about is a whole new category of policy being cut from whole cloth, with no discussion other than a pet template applied to one single page, and with no explanation for what the criteria are for this whole new kind of policy. If you want to make a whole new kind of policy, fine. But don't do it like this.

This is also a really, really bad way to do this, on a technical level. It's trivially easy to do this as part of {{policy}} with parser functions, and that's why the old {{policy2}} was deleted. If you can drum up the support to separate the policy like this, we can do it the right way.

Please reply here instead of on my talk page. I'm not interested in splitting discussions between multiple pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphologist?

Hi Geni! Are u interested in Graphology? You seem to have made some contributin to the Graphology page. Because I am :) Why don't u put a couple of userboxes on your user-page so that people can know more about u. I am an utter newbie so please forgive me if I sound stupid. -- 125.21.164.251 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't use userboxes because I prefer to use words.Geni 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Who says they look aesthetically pleasing or, that they "look silly"? I think they look much better than some silly gender stereotyping image that you put there. At the moment Image:Replace_this_image1.svg redirects to Wikipedia:Fromowner which seems to explain perfectly well how to replace it. If necessary it can be redirected to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner and the page edited to include "Image:Replace_this_image1.svg". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC discussions have no weight as many people don't know it exists, don't know how to access it, or don't want to access it. As these changes seem to have no consensus on Wikipedia I'll continue to revert. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're making the change but no discussion seems to exist on Wikipedia where it has communuty support. I think it is inappropriate to have these gender stereotyping images in the first place apart from the fact they look ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation

Related images are gathered on that pages. If you know of any other then the current 4 (3 people, 1 building), please add them there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I like all three people, the two later represent modern/western head silouttes, and the first one is pretty neutral. I do hope we wil have a few more generic: we could use a map placeholder, for example.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

July 15th DYK

On 15 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stroudwater Navigation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 04:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Canals

Yes, my contribution was prompted by the rather poor "History" section which jumps straight from ancient history to the 19th century, but I agree it now rather overlaps "features". But it's important to chronicle the technical developments which led to the explosion of canal building from 1760 onwards and also to emphasise the multi-national nature of this. What the section probably needs is some figures about the increase of canal building. So I'll try and dig those up.

In the meanwhile I've changed the title of that section as I can't think of a better one. Chris55 08:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rough draft

I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PDjohn_lennon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PDjohn_lennon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Placeholders

Would you be able to create a generic free image placeholder that could be used for anything? At present we only have specific ones, such as Image:Replace this imageb.svg for buildings and Image:Replace this image male.svg for men. (Shimgray suggested I come to you.) 81.157.31.61 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

already exists filesize a bit bigger than I would like mind. The reason I haven't already put something like this in place is that I'd rather stick with specific ones and get wikiprojects to manage them.Geni 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with what to do about Digital Command Control

Someguy0830 said I should contact you about an issue I raised about Digital Command Control on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Basically someone has set up a prefix dcc: to an external wiki and many of the subject links actually point to this wiki rather than other Wikipedia pages. I think all of this material should be in Wikipedia itself and am looking for advice on what to do. I have not been able to establish who actually owns this external wiki but they are asking for donations via PayPal so cannot have the same security of tenure as Wikipedia. Given your stated interests its similar to have someone set up a Narrow Boat wiki somewhere and are attempting to hijack all info into this just because they can.

However I do have a slight issue with Someguy0830 who removed many of the links to DCC Manufacturers from said site (akin to removing Narrow Boat Builders) which I disagree with. Again I would welcome your opinion on this. St1got 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Template cleanup

It seems that at some point you created various templates in conjunction with a now-defunct policy. Would you have any objection to me deleting these orphaned templates (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1. {{Level1}} (uses)
2. {{Level10}} (uses)
3. {{Level2}} (uses)
4. {{Level3}} (uses)
5. {{Level4}} (uses)
6. {{Level5}} (uses)
7. {{Level6}} (uses)
8. {{Level7}} (uses)
9. {{Level8}} (uses)
10. {{Level9}} (uses)

XavierVE

I'm aware of this, but it's not unusual to purge a whole history for an indef blocked user - it can always be restored later. Is there something you're looking for in the history? WilyD 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking into restoring what I can. WilyD 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm restoring those history versions I'm willing to restore, but to be perfectly frank, you're not going to get very much. There's just too much shit in there. If you want specific information, it'd probably be easier to just ask. You could look around for someone who's more willing to restore history, but I doubt you'll find anyone. I've shown more sympathy for Xavier than anyone else who's looked at it so far. Nonetheless, feel free. Cheers, WilyD 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but after looking over that archive, there's simply too much I can't restore to do anything viable. If you're interested in pieces, I may be able to provide them to you where appropriate. If you really want to contest it, feel free to take it to deletion review. WilyD 16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Query

Geni, you seem to know about the GFDL. If you have time, would you mind replying to this query? It's basically whether copying and pasting material from one WP article to another, without attributing the material to the Wikipedia editors who wrote it, is a GFDL violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:High contrastcopyright.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:High contrastcopyright.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. fuzzy510 05:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

4.1 assertion

Could you explain in more detail why there's still a GFDL issue? Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Temp article

Since we seem to be the only ones dicussing this specific case I thought I would continue the discussion here. To respond you your last post. Yes, if there is a non-copyvio version in the article it can be easy but not always. Example:

1. August 2006 Editor A added the copyvio.
2. Oktober 2006 Editor B greatly expands the article.
3. November 2006 Editor C tags the article as a copyvio.
4. ,, ,, Editor D creates a temp article which includes the expansion but not the copyvio,
5. ,, ,, Admin E comes along, deletes the history back to the last non-copyvio edit and merges the temp article with that.

Result, copyvio is gone, so is the mention of Editor B who greatly expanded the article. Garion96 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, therefore I think our current copyvio procedure is not GFDL compliant. I guess step 4 could still be ok if for instance editor B only added new pharagraphs to the article which editor D copied to the temp article. But the result would still be the same. All mention of editor B is gone. Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite draft

Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article and the criticism section is much clearer and goes into greater detail. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ages of consent pages

Hi, Your additions are most welcome but you seem to have missed that I did not remove your additions to these pages. I've simply formatted them in the way that all the Ages of consent... pages are. Please see the orange box at the top of the talk pages. --Monotonehell 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello you've done it again. Please understand the formatting requirements of the Ages of consent in... pages as reached by consensus are a little different to the normal practice of using the ref tags and having a references section at the bottom. The reason is that these pages become very large, having the references to the law cited inline makes the page a lot tidier and much easier to read.

See the other more complete pages for examples; Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania or Ages of consent in Europe for example. The further requirement for citations to the actual laws is to satisfy verifiability. There are many pages on the Web that have age of consent information, over the years that we have been assembling the Ages of consent pages we have found that the vast majority of those are inaccurate and out of date. It's for this reason that we have settled on these high standards for citations to the law. --Monotonehell 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Citeing primiary sources is kinda ify particularly where law is concerned. Also creates the problem that it completely ignores caselaw which will tend to result in errors in common law based juristictions.Geni 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I outlined above, citing legislation is vastly more accurate that relying on iffy sources. We've found Interpol to be completely wrong many times. Common law hasn't come into it as yet, most legislation is formed to take into account common law precedents or to negate it.--Monotonehell 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okey in the indian example. A reading of the law would make you think 16 yes? Unless you knew that under 18 had parental consent issues. Throw in the amount of outdated law floating around the net and you are still going to have problems. Interpol generaly claims to be okey up to spring 2006. In the absense of adding something else removeing the citations is unhelpful. You are free to ask for futher citations but the loss of secondary sources is not good.Geni 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep for an example of similar situations see several of the jurisdictions on Ages of consent in Latin America. Brazil for example, where the general AOC is 14 but there's Espurto and parental approval issues. All I saying is have a read of the other Ages of consent in... pages and understand the formatting that we're using on these pages in order to keep everything consistent and verified. Again, I did not remove any of the references that you included, I formatted them to comply with the consistent system we have. Which, instead of having a singe references section at the bottom of the page, each jurisdiction is dealt with separately. It's done in this way to keep all the references for each jurisdiction together with their section. Otherwise the reference section becomes unwieldy.

We've had all these discussions in the past already. There's method in our madness ;) --Monotonehell 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are various tricks availible for compressing the amount of space refences take up includeing the two collum method and the scrollbox method.Geni 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The scroll box method is outlawed due to accessibility issues, and for similar reasons having a smaller font is not a good idea.

But this is not the issue. Have a look at Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania for an example of a page properly formatted in this scheme. The references system is reserved for tangential references to news services and similar. While citations to the law are made inline. Also any external documentation that is specific to a particular jurisdiction is placed with in that jurisdiction's section. It's done this way because we are considering the way which the average reader will use the Age of consent set of pages. Most people will only read their specific section of interest. So we try to keep all the pertinent information in each separate section as if each were its own mini-article. --Monotonehell 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Runs into issues with part 2 of WP:EL#Important_points_to_remember.Geni 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This was also discussed previously, it was decided to WP:IAR in this case because of the over riding issues of readability. The scheme is outlined at Wikipedia:Embedded citations --Monotonehell 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However by putting up the standard citation needed boxes you are asking for standard style citations.Geni 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion? The citation needed templates are calling for a citation, not a particular method for dealing with them. If anyone is kind enough to provide a citation anywhere on Wikipedia, but doesn't include it in the "correct" manner, someone else will come along and reformat it. Just as I have done with your contributions. --Monotonehell 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You ask for citations then start trying to inforce non standard citation requirements and convetions. Assume 50 countires per page 5 citations per country that gives you 250 citations. Manageable through normal methods. Much above 5 citations you move the section into a sub article.Geni 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. The inline citation method is not a non-standard method, it is one of the methods available under the Wikipedia Manual of style. The inline format was chosen for the 6 Ages of consent in... pages by consensus after lengthy discussion in order to make it easier for the casual reader to find the information they want (These 6 pages are subpages forked rom Age of consent by the way). Instead of a mess of references at the bottom of the page, we have direct citation to legislation inline, any additional reading relating specifically to a section directly beneath each section (as you would normally find "Further reading" and "See also" at the bottom of an article). And finally any actual references that are not direct citations to legislation in the normal "References" section. It's been like this for nearly two years and works well, it was decided by consensus, and it's not contrary to the MoS at all.

Compare Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania tp Ages of consent in Asia. --Monotonehell 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Genisock2

Got a question about something... like a lot of folks, my watchlist is getting on the long side (yes, I am pruning it). What I was hoping I could do was to split it into two different lists: the active pages and the less active ones. I see on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 you withdrew it saying: "User:Guettarda's workaround appears effective.". Can I ask what that workaround was? I'm wondering if it'll do what I have in mind... Tabercil 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. Your method involved 2 accounts... rats. I was hoping for an answer that only needed the one. Tabercil 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

Please do not insert the outdated image again without discussion on the talk page. I understand that some think that this helps the article but it does not, IMO. In fact, the image is of "Native Africans" and is an old image from 1914. It is bad practice to insert information that is outdated and not fact. You nor I know for sure that those pictured represent "Negroid". If you think you know that, that is POV. Please see the talk page, and discuss your reasons for the need of the outdated image that may or not be related to "negroids". Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

River Don Navigation

Why remove the external link to Pennine Waterways?

AFAICS, that site is a pretty comprehensive and authoritative site containing a good deal of further reading on the subject. Mayalld

Regarding your reply at User Talk:Mayalld#River Don Navigation I would disagree that the links have been spammed across many pages. Pennine Waterways has (at present), a far greater depth of coverage of the canals of northern England than Wikipedia does, and I would regard it as sufficiently authoritative to be used as a cite, let alone as an external link. Furthermore, this isn't a case of linking to the home page many times. Each link is deep linked to appropriate page on the site. Perhaps it would have been Better is User:Pennine had discussed adding the links on the project page to gain a consensus for doing so, but equally it would have been better to discuss removing the links, rather than going round reverting every change he makes. If User:Pennine is who I think he is, he would be a valuable addition to the project membership. Mayalld 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, each link is a different link to a good source of information on that subject. Yes, there are many links to the same site, but that is hardly surprising when the site in question covers a wide range of canal related subjects! Having decided to add one link to that site, it would seem eminently reasonable to add other links where the site provides additional information. I concede that he should have discussed it first, but if his actions in adding links without discussion were wrong, is your removal without discussion not also wrong? People sometimes do things the wrong way, and we should move on from where we are, rather than taking the stance that we will rip down anything that has been done, and only put it back once the proper process has been followed. Mayalld 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what was done as being anything that was described in the section on external link spamming on WP:SPAM, because he added DIFFERENT, and relevant, links to articles which added to those articles by providing a link to a more in depth source. Clearly you take a different view. In my opinion, the fact that it was NOT a clear cut case of link spamming means that it should have been discussed first. However, we are where we, and just as I think you were wrong to remove all those links without discussion, I would be wrong to put them back. I suggest that we take the discussion to the project page. Mayalld 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

External links to pennine waterways articles

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is an ongoing discussion about these external links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways. Probably best to hold off making any further changes until the debate has reached a consensus. --VinceBowdren 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Got your message for which I thank you -- I just don't know how to add the information you suggested to the pix so that it's acceptable -- how to do it? Mig 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship offer kindly received

Hi Geni - all previous offers of "Mentorship" for me have been torpedoed by a blizzard of accusations, complaints and even administrator actions against those who dare to deal with me in a collegiate manner. User:HG is just the latest to have buckled under (in his case) relatively mild pressure of "you're much too buddy buddy with PR" and other such accusations (HG doesn't like them refered to as attacks). Despite the mountain of aggressive accusations against me, there's only a single instance in 10 months and 1500 edits of me doing anything anyone has has bothered to quote and consider offensive, and the community is split on whether it amounts to a "legal threat". A plea of "not guilty" to the charge of "making a legal threat" evinced only an accusation that pleading "Not Guilty" made me an even more recalciturn offender.

Having said all of which, and without knowing anything about you whatsoever, I'd be delighted to have you as my "Mentor". All it requires from you is to examine this evidence page and express your opinion on whether I'm indeed working to improve articles. (Be prepared for even more bitter flack as I attempt to carry out further urgently needed edits detailed at this page).

I'm sorry to be operating as a single purpose account for this topic - extensive (robust) discussion finally proved that my doing this is to WP:policy after all. I've virtually stopped operating my regular account (the one I used to add a whole bunch of other material I was interested in). Doubtless when things calm down I'll return to regular editing and this onerous duty you've volunteered for can be laid aside and buried. PalestineRemembered 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)