Jump to content

User talk:Damiens.rf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.32.94.161 (talk) at 20:02, 20 September 2009 (→Blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is not a battle ground

Please, stay cool.

Murder of Michael Causer

I have undone your removal of Murder of Michael Causer from the Murders category. To me that removal seems completely without merit. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already on Category:Murder in England, that is on Category:Murder in the United Kingdom, that is on Category:Murder by country that is on Murder. --Damiens.rf 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW

I restored the image File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Previously, I deleted the image after J Milburn's nagging because the discussion was pretty clear. Currently, there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, so we should keep such images on hold until the discussion concludes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should delete it again. Regardless of that RFC, I disagree with the closing this deletion discussion as "no consensus". Please, don't make me go back to what I have already pointed you to in User talk:King of Hearts#Head counting. --Damiens.rf 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat this again. What is wrong with waiting? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for what, sir? For the RFC? It is unrelated to your mistakenly closing of that FFD as no consensus. Since you RUSHED and restored the image, we're back to the original argument that you once avoided by deleting the image and opening an rfc.
So, back from were we stopped, you asked me to explain why was File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg historical, and I did it. Would you delete File:New_Zealand_soldiers_in_Iraq,_March,_2004.jpg now, or you will say it's just as historical? --Damiens.rf 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold that there was no consensus; I only deleted it because the RfC back then was quite clear that no consensus defaulted to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep distance from ffd discussion if you read that as a no-consensus... --Damiens.rf 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally a little sceptical of the whole process at the moment (and feel some of King's actions a little odd- there have been/are discussions about that) but your nomination looks more than sound. It would appear that the vast majority of arguments in the deletion debate were completely invalid. If the close is upheld at this deletion review, I think that really will be the nail in the coffin of my faith in the FfD process. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens: The speedy tags are not valid. Please don't game the system. The image was orphaned because it was deleted, and so it cannot be deleted because it is orphaned; that would be circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you ignore the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag Carnildo added? Do not accuse me of gaming the system, you've done enough mess by now. --Damiens.rf 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to emphasize "policy" over everything, I invite you to read WP:CSD, which is a policy: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly a controversial issue, and should not be subjected to speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete? If it wasn't for your lack of competency, this image would have been deleted ages ago. And please stop ignoring every thing I ask you. This is annoying and unrespectful. --Damiens.rf 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Go fly a kite. --Damiens.rf 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stay cool. This talk page is not a battle ground. If you're getting frustrated, go outside, walk around, and come back after you've relaxed a bit. Everybody will be better off that way. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, go outside and fly a kite. It's relaxing. --Damiens.rf 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't respond to me in such a manner. I am being entirely serious. My decision to use the words posted at the top of your talk page was intended to communicate the importance of civility and staying "cool" in language that resonates with you. The words that resonate the best with people are often their own although I realize that many people might not appreciate this when they are in the middle of a heated debate on the Wiki. And that's why it is so important to remember the importance of assuming good faith, staying cool, and, above all, avoiding personal attacks. I hope that this clears up any misconceptions - take care. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG was moved to Commons and therefore speedily deleted at Wikipedia without discussion. Then, commons:File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG to see it was dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damiens.rf&action=edit&section=5eleted at Commons after discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG. I was the photographer. You were the nominator for this discussion. Is it possible that the image might be viable on WP under Fair use. The file had been at use in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency as shown by this edit--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an opinion on this matter. I see you have recently editted this page and have been active in the last two days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't envision a valid fair use rationale since I fail to feel a need in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency of an illustration of how he looked like in the bigscreen during his inauguration discourse. If you want, add the information about the closed-caption text not being inline with what the guy said, but there's no need to add an non-free image as a proof or something. --Damiens.rf 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that you do not feel that there is a need is valid. However, would you strongly oppose hosting it on wikipedia under fair use with this point being made. It is a fairly unique depiction that can not be replaced. Furthermore, the transmission on the big screen was probably actually the work of the United States Government and may fall under PD protections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would oppose to use this unneeded image if it's really non-free. Being "unique" is not a justification to use non-free images, you should know. It's just one of out of 10 criteria for accepting such material. But if the transmission is really pd, I would not object it's use. While not necessary, it's not detrimental. --Damiens.rf 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I claim that it was a transmission by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, it would be PD would it not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does commons have a WP:DRV and if so would it be required since in all likelihood this was a transmission by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably has, but just ignore it and reupload the image instead. I wouldn't object.--Damiens.rf 15:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reuploaded. Can you tell if I had cropped the prior version that was deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:CSEP

Redirects go to WP:RFD, not MFD. Also, there wasn't really a reason to nominate this for deletion anyway; since the target is also at MFD, the best solution is to hold out and wait for the discussion on the target to end first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware

Hi, I'm sure you mean well however that anon has been baiting editors across multiple pages and talkpages and user talkpages for a while. Their "concerns" about content are masked personal attacks against many editors so we try not to encourage them. If they are unable to work collaboratively then likely this is not a great match for their interests. Their "content concern" were addressed already and seemed to be inflated in the first place. Labeling my edits as vandalism is rather insulting but I trust you meant well. If you look at the edits and the source you likely will see there is no plagarism or copyvio as claimed. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked 3 hours for this. That was highly inappropo, you opened the ifd yourself, rv'd the close, which was a clear keep, and made a personal attack in the edit summary. A calmly worded DRV would have been the proper course of action. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were you trying to achieve by with this block? A punishment? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damiens, I'm disappointed. I'd left our previous conversation above hoping that you understood the importance of staying cool and avoiding personal attacks. I really encourage you to consider what's been said in this very thoughtful essay: [1] 68.32.94.161 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I want to second that ... that was uncalled for. Jeffrey summarized the discussion; rightly or wrongly, it was a consensus for keep. DRV is the appeal for that, if the closing admin called the consensus right and policy right, which he did.
Getting personal with the closing admin when they just followed the rules is just not ok. It corrodes the level of discussion and reduces everyone's interest in communicating and collaborating when you do things like that. Please don't do it again... You've been around for long enough to know what's ok and what's not ok, and what effects rude and abusive behavior have. Please keep those in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out you were putting this all over the place. I'll let other admins handle that part. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damiens.rf&oldid=315154467"