User talk:Damiens.rf

Image listed for deletion

In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.

This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.

Please desist harassment

Taking your irrational anti-quote crusade, to every quote I have ever added on Wikipedia is a means of harassment ... in response to current disagreements. Nearly all of these quotes have NEVER been a problem for any other editor, and you have not justified your (no quote) policy. In addition, you never discuss your drive-by removals, as you hastily go page to page deleting every quote you find that I have ever added. If you continue this behavior I will report you to wiki administration & I will continue to revert your behavior for as many days as it takes, until you achieve some consensus or show me the specific policy BANNING all use of quotes.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop threatening me. I've already said that I don't oppose your seeking for (administrative or not) third part help. I was not aware that you single-handled decorated all those che-guevara-related articles with quotes yourself. But this is not a reason for me to stop following the site wide guidelines on the matter. You may want to read Wikipedia:QUOTE#When not to use quotations before asking for help. Also, I'd like to point out that, sometimes, your choice of words offend me. I know that you may be doing that unintentionally, an that's why I preferred to bring this out here, in the spirit of amicability, instead of keeping this feeling to myself. If you're not intentionally using harsh words (and that's what I bellieve deep inside), I apologize, and ask you to simply ignore this last paragraph. --Damiens.rf 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, you continue to cite "SITE GUIDELINES" which are as follows:

When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when: ~ Note how this says "Try to avoid" not NEVER USE ?

a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles. ~ Note how this says to work quote info into article, something you refuse to do, as you just delete them ?

the same quote has been used elsewhere in the article. For example, offering a quote under a section titled "Influences" expounding on the influence of someone's religion when it has already been used in the "Biography" section should be avoided. There is no need for duplication. ~ NONE of the quotes you have deleted have been duplicates !

the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. Most of the articles where you have deleted quotes, have only HAD 1 Cquote in them. Yet you still delete them and call them "decoration" ... when many articles have at least 1 cquote and you have yet to show that ANY use of them is banned.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your rationale first, before templating articles (which should be a last resort). Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Read and Understand This

Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING. You have been shown that quotes are allowed under wiki policy. Your constant edit warring and violating of 3RR in order to remove cited and relevant material is an act of trolling. If you have a complaint about an article, use the talk page to discuss it. Your behavior is unacceptable and resembles bad faith. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your hilarious accusation of "stalking" is laughable. You are the one who continually for days has been deleting quotes I have added to articles. Then when I mimic your behavior you scream of "stalking". My behavior was simply to display to you, how your actions appear. It's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it? Now go play elsewhere, and quit vandalizing articles by deleting all quotes which are allowed under wiki policy.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

John Bannon image

While I agree that it is important to have an image on the page, what is more important is having an appropriate image on the page. This is, after all, an article in an encyclopedia and thus the images on the page, especially at a focal point such as an infobox, should be somewhat respectful and representative. A simple portrait-style image (such as the one that was removed) is more appropriate than an image of the subject carrying a tray of drinks. Was the subject a waiter? Or a bartender? No, he was the Hon. Premier of South Australia. Please refrain from re-adding that image until a suitable replacement can be found. ABVS1936 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, taking the image out of context and adding it to the Waiting staff page is preposterous, per my comments above. ABVS1936 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Paterson Bridge

I suggest that you think through your actions a little more.

The image that you have now twice tagged is very clearly from the era noted in image notes (i.e. approximately 1910), forty-odd years clear of the limit on public domain images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to go find the source for this image rather than deleting it for jollies when you and I both know that it is definitely public domain?

This is on the same day that I've seen you a) try to delete an image of a dead person by claiming that he was in fact, alive, and b) claim that one of the most significant feminist book publishers in history was a self-published vanity press. Perhaps you should be a little more careful with your editing, because that's three times in the one day where your carelessness has negatively impacted upon the encyclopedia. Rebecca (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked. You've just reverted me on Jessica Valenti - by still claiming that Seal Press is a vanity press? This is a major press that has published many of the most significant feminist books and feminist authors of the last fifty years. Did you even bother to Google them before attacking the article? Rebecca (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On what possible basis are you still making that claim? Not only is there utterly no evidence for it if you'd so much as Googled them, but it's arguably libelous as well. And you'd have noticed that he was dead if you'd actually looked at his article. Can you see what I'm getting at here? Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wow. Every biographical article in Wikipedia on a dead person lists the death date; if the person is living only the birth date will be listed. If you haven't worked that one out yet, you really shouldn't be deleting images on the basis that someone is living or dead. And you've still not answered why you're randomly smearing a major publishing company, or why you're hellbent on trying to delete an image which you know for a fact is public domain. Rebecca (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that in future you might want to read more closely before making accusations of that nature - since you're so familiar with Wikipedia policies, you might want to take heed of WP:BLP, which is one of our most important.

Seal Press is a significant imprint of a major publishing company. Their books are in I dare say most large bookstores in the Western world, and several are staples of university courses around the world (in fact, they put out one of the most cited women's studies texts ever written). I don't know where the hell you got the idea that they were a vanity press, but once again, you really need to think things through before you come out with a claim like that in a Wikipedia article.

As for the image, you know from the state of the image that it was made well before 1955, which it would have to be after to be copyrighted. You have two courses of action here - a) go look for the source to confirm the obvious, and b) delete a perfectly good and perfectly legal image. I'm damned if I know why you're choosing the latter course, but it certainly ain't helping the project. Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've again reverted the page, again on the basis of this bizarre claim. I'm at a loss - what the heck are you doing? Rebecca (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti is one of the most successful (in terms of publishing and in terms of attention) feminist writers under 30 around. She's written a highly successful book (both in terms of books sold, media attention, and university courses picking it up), she's done things like The Colbert Report, she's written a successful follow-up, and she runs a highly popular website with a readership of many thousands. Trying to insist that your edits were still justified on that basis, even after admitting that you've made a gutload of reverts to the article on a basis which was totally bogus, will not fly. I hope you'll be better behaved upon returning from your block, because this sort of behaviour has consequences on Wikipedia. Rebecca (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering your history with the article before, it might well be better for you to pick an article to work on that you don't have quite such an erratic history with - especially since the article is a BLP, and that you have had ongoing negative engagement with its subject. Rebecca (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your work is negatively affecting the project, and in this case, the article on a BLP. I'm asking you to do the right thing and find another article to direct your interest in light of your past history there. It isn't about acting nasty; it's about careless and erratic behaviour negatively impacting upon the project. And if you can't police your own behaviour, I'd have to say that by the reaction your block received, you're probably heading very quickly towards Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Rebecca (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think with your history with both the article and its subject that your presence on Jessica Valenti is probably unhelpful. Rebecca (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I'm actually a critic of Valenti; that book which you initially claimed was self-published was very controversial in parts of the feminist movement. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to complain when an editor starts doing the editing version of driving drunk and stoned through her article. It's not just your random attempts at disparaging the women (evidently driven by your past clashes with her in the article history); it's your cluelessness about the entire subject (i.e. repeatedly claiming that her publisher was a vanity press, and claiming that some Salon interview said something particularly illuminating when it's the subject of her entire book, and basically her attitude to feminism). Rebecca (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't even about good faith - it's about dealing with an editor who persistently makes an article worse, whether through being grumpy with its subject or just plain incompetence. Your handling of the anthologies she's been involved in is a good example of this; in your haste to downplay them, you've rewritten the sounding prose to take on a decidedly un-academic tone with worse grammar. I don't care why you can't seem to edit this article helpfully, but if you can't (and your edits since being unblocked suggest that you can't), then please go find somewhere else on the project to contribute. Rebecca (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about stopping making or reverting back in the problematic edits to begin with? Rebecca (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 04:26, 26 October 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

According to the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, it was User:Rebecca that violated 3RR. I was doing valid changes to the article (like adding and formating references and external links), I tried to collaborate with her, only to receive reverts of my edits.

Decline reason:

This block was discussed at WP:ANI#Intervention welcomed, and consensus appears to be that you were disruptive. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:57, 26 October 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry, MaxSem. But I had already been blocked (for 24hs) for the reasons discussed on that ANI thread. This time, I wasn't blocked "for being disruptive", but "for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti", and that's what I'm disputing here. To the the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, I add that Rebecca was reverting valid edits I was doing to Jessica Valenti, like adding and formating sources and formating external links. In her reverts, valid information was lost, like that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post" and the use of the template cite-web on the Colbert Report reference. Please, carefully review the situation. Thanks.

Decline reason:

It is clear that you were edit-warring on this page. Your last block for edit-warring ended just hours before you started again: that you should so quickly recommence edit-warring so quickly is disturbing. I therefore fully endorse Smashville's escalation of the block to a week and strongly urge you not to edit war when the block expires. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (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.

Ok, I fail to see how that was edit warring. I tied to communicate with Rebecca, but she preferred to keep reverting my valid edits. Now, due to Rebecca's edits, the Jessica Valenti article has a broken reference (number 4), the references number 5 is no longer formated with {{cite web}}, it no longer mentions that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post", the interviews she gave about her book are hidden in the external links section (even without link-descriptions) instead of incorporated in the article as references, not to mention the reference Rebecca broke and had to be repaired by the bot AnomieBOT.

Nevermind, she's the former member of arbcom and I'm the recently blocked drama queen. --Damiens.rf 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty straightforward. You can't revert more than 3 times. You reverted 5. --Smashville^talk 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize it was Rebecca reverting to begin with? Do you realize she was the first one to revert? Do you realize she was the first to reach the "3 times" count? Do you realize she used the justification "bad grammar" to revert think like formating {{cite web}} templates altogether?

Does 3RR applies to "former arbcom members" just as straightforward as it applies to "recently blocked users"? --Damiens.rf 12:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"She started it" is not an excuse that is generally accepted on Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever another user did is irrelevant. I recently blocked you and was watching your edits when you came off your block. I was not watching Rebecca's edits because I had no need to. If she was not blocked at the 3RR noticeboard, take it up with someone else. I didn't decline it...and I didn't notice until about five minutes ago that you even reported it there. It doesn't excuse your behavior. Quite simply, 3 is the limit and 5 is more than 3. --Smashville^talk 14:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You were watching my edits but didn't notice I'had reported Rebecca to the 3RR noticeboard?

I guess I can't take it up with someone else, since you've blocked me for a week... --Damiens.rf 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't revert 3 times on the noticeboard. I checked your contribution history and noticed several edits to one article. And again - this is not about someone else's edits. It's about the fact that you violated 3RR. What someone else did is irrelevant. You knew better...you had just come off a 3RR block and within 4 hours did it again. The fact that I was checking up on you and not scrutinizing the behavior of another user does not excuse your behavior. --Smashville^talk 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the the actions of Rebecca do matter exactly because they show that the one reverting wasn't me, but her. I was adding content, adding sources, formating references, incorporating external links as references, etc... while she was just reverting each one of my edits, and refusing to cooperate when I tried to reach her on her talk page. --Damiens.rf 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You realize that everyone on Wikipedia can actually see your edits, right? You reverted to your original version, one, two, three, four, five times in a two hour period. --Smashville^talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Smashville, I will explain how each of these diffs occurred and why I believe they can't be sincerely interpreted as "Damiens is edit warring, violated 3RR" and why what other users are doing matters. It will be long, I and wish you could put as much dedication to read it as I've put to write.

The diff "one" is actually an undoing of an accidental article blanking by myself. If you use the diff function correctly and compare it to the version you called "your original version", you'll see that I was formating the external links with the {{cite web}} template. I did had to undo Rebecca's previous revert, since she reverterd a series of 6 valid edits by me where I added some references, formated some others, added content and cleaned the external links. User:Rebecca undid all of that with the justification "(revert edits that made grammar worse"[1].

Rebecca then reverted (2nd time) my use of {{cite web}} and all previous improvements using just the justification "Nyet. Removing changes that made article worse"[2] (Note that since her first revert I was trying to communicate with her at her talk page.)

In the diff "two", if you really compare it with "my original version", you will notice that I was not only undoing Rebecca's 2nd revert, but also, incorporating external links as content and references to the article.

After that, I added more improvements, like trying a better format for the references section[3], trying to homogenize the use of italics through the article [4] and even trying to address what (I believe could be) Rebecca's concerns with my grammar[5].

Then User:Rebecca reverted it all again (3rd time), saying simply "Revert, again, edits making article worse than the original article"[6].

In the diff "three", I undo User:Rebecca's 3rd revert, believing that she was making some progress in our talk page conversations, were I was repeatedly asking her to help me to fix her "grammar" concerns, and explaining that things like adding new references and formating existing ones with {{cite web}} could not be "making article worse than the original".

I went on with MOS improvements in the references[7] and adding more content to the "Essays" section[8]...

Just to see Rebecca not only reverting (4th time) everything again, but also completely removing the "Essays" section[9] that I had just started to work on to improve!!! This section also served as a reference to some claims in the article, and now the article is broken without it (see the reference #4 in the current (rebecca's) version of the article, that now mentions an non existing section).

She went on to remove one more paragraph from the article that she doubled a "clueless factoid"[10]

And note that before her 4th revert, I had already gently warned her about the risk of violating 3RR (on her talk page).

Your diff "four" is me, not only undoing Rebeca's 3RR-violating revert (and subsequent content removal), but also adding more content to the (now restored) "Essays" section.

I went on to add information about one place more where the article's subject worked as a freelance (what was supported my recently added content on the "Essays" section, to do some minor MOS homogenizations[11] and external-links cleanup[12]

User:Rebecca reverted (5th rtime!) all of this (and everything prior) explaining "these edits either a) don't make sense, or b) are totally unnecessary. knock it off'" [13].

In your diff "five", I'm not only undoing Rebeca's 5th revert, but adding content about the publication of a second book by the article's subject.

User:Rebecca reverted them for the 6th time, but she liked the sentence about the 2nd book, and left it on the article[14]. In her edit summary, She qualified all previous improvements as "cruft".

This edit indeed left the article with a broken reference (#6) and a reference mentioning a removed section (#4) (see her version)

Not to mention that she lost the {{cite web}} formatting I've added to reference #5.

At this point, I was unable to fix the article since I was already blocked for a week for "violating the 3RR rule". Hopefully, a bot fixed one of the problems with the references.

So, do you still stand that it doesn't matters what Rebecca did? Do you feel more comfortable in letting my 3RR report to be archived with the result "Submitter already blocked?"

Your's truly, --Damiens.rf 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, and I don't know how many times we have to go over this: The actions of another user do not excuse your actions. You violated 3RR. I have never said it "doesn't matter" what she did - I said I was not watching her edits. --Smashville^talk 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the fact that when I did my 4th (so called) "revert" I had already reported Rebecca to 3RR have any weight? Or the fact that I tried to reach her on her talk page since her first revert? Did you read the talk page discussion? As I repeatedly invited her to work with me in the article, she repeatedly said "go edit another article". --Damiens.rf 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Again - the actions of another user are not an excuse for you to violate 3RR. I apologize that I did not look at her edits, but you clearly exceeded 3RR. --Smashville^talk 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, her 3RR report was closed with the result "Submitter already blocked"[15], so, I guess, my actions did served as an excuse for her violation of 3RR.

Since I'm incapable at the moment, would you mind communication with her or with the closing admin? Explaining them that my blocking is no excuse for her violatiion of the 3RR? I don't believe she needs to be blocked at this point (since the question is currently moot), but I hope to have a more collaborative instance from her when my block expires. --Damiens.rf 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, Il faut arreter. Toute cette histoire te rend malade. Ici c'est comme une secte, tu dois etre gentil sinon on te casse. Tu as bien travaille, tu as ete gentil, mais tu t es enerve. C'est trop tot pour te prendre pour un maitre de l'univers avec toute puissance sur les edits des autres. Il faut gagner ce privilege. iL FAUT DEVENIR ADMIN. Et pour devenir admin, il faut lecher le cul des autres admin, avant de pouvoir niquer les autres, les newbies. Il faut pas les mordre (dont bite newbies), il faut leur dire de te faire une pipe sans te mordre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparsa? (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you REALLY know about Cuba?

You have TWICE reverted my edit calling Fidel Castro 'a strongman'. In reality, in this case 'strongman' is a gross understatement. NPOV rules tend to protect people from unjust attacks. Fine. Trouble is, they also protect bastards from being called bastards. It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that there will always be a plentiful supply of self-appointed vigilantes, good-intentioned or not, who will immediately and zealously react against and revert an edit of, say, Fidel Castro's article calling him what he really is, a dictator. Also sadly, most of such vigilantes often are completely ignorant of the applicable historical facts, so we have (along the same example) an Norwegian kid, ignorant of the 20th-Century history of the Americas, reverting edits about Fidel Castro made by a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the Paredón, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good; the Norwegian youngster administering the final insult: he delivers a sermon on WP:NPOV policy, because the Cuban editor didn't supply proper "references" or "citations" about facts the whole world is well aware of. It's nauseating. Perhaps if Wikipedia was based in a country less dominated (or better, harassed) by lawyers than the USA, then saying THE TRUTH would be more important than saying just polite, tactful, NPOV-correct, mild, harmless, non-offensive, and hypocritical statements about people, or than "adequately sourcing" said truth. So, Mr. Vigilante, Fidel Castro is not only 'a strongman' (did you look at the article or not?), he is a criminal, a murderer, a ruthless Dictator, a liar, a thief, and a rotten bastard. That's the truth, not "THRUTH" as you wrote. So quit protecting the article on Cuba: you simple lack que qualifications for the task. You need a lot of further study and to do a lot of research. Perhaps a 2-year stay in Cuba itself would be best. You'd learn a lot, and be surprised a lot. Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for complaining about how your relatives were harmed by the elimination of poverty in a country. --Damiens.rf 19:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Caution

You've recently come off a week long block, and are being incautious. [16] was unhelpful and looks like stalking / trolling. Not having fully worked out what is going on, I have done nothing. But the advice you received above in french (shorn of the naughty words) is plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Some questions for you for a book about Wikipedia.

Damiens, hello--

My name is Mike Smith, and I am currently at work on a book--a book about Wikipedia--about how Wikipedia has affected our culture, and about the wide range of people who help to make Wikipedia the social force that it is. (It will also be accompanied by an hour-long documentary.) I am attempting to contact a number of notable Wikipedia users, yourself included, in pursuit of information about the inner Wikipedia community and its members.

If you are at all interested in being interviewed for my book, drop me an e-mail at mike@mystrangenewmexico.com, with a mailing address so I can send you one of my publisher's press kits for this project. It'll give you a good overview of what sorts of questions I'll be asking, and will even includes a promotional T-shirt.

If you're not interested, that's fine as well; it's my loss. Well, it would be yours too, since you won't get to represent yourself in the book--while some of those who know you from Wikipedia will.

I hope to hear from you soon,

Sincerely,

Mike Smith Author, WIK-ED: HOW WIKIPEDIA CONQUERED, REVOLUTIONIZED, AND REDEFINED THE WORLD (Spring 2009)