Jump to content

User talk:Δ

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 8 July 2011 (→‎Flagicon usage: fix indent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Once more I'm off to do some work

archives:  1   2  3   4   5
               6   7  8   9  10
              11 12 13 14 15
              16 17 18 19

Civility warning

Without regards to the underlying FUR / NFCC issues - Your warning to Wikidemon violated the civility restrictions terms of your community edit restrictions. You both assumed bad faith and were borderline uncivil. Yes, he made two mistakes, but he also fixed a bunch of other mistakes you'd made.

This type of thing is a large part of why your behavior is so controversial.

Please don't do that again.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, check your facts. I have not made any mistakes. The files that I removed where tagged as non-free and they did not have a rationale for the use where I removed them. Wikidemon re-added several files and caught my attention I spot checked 3 or four and found a large percent that where not fixed, to I left him a note/warning. That is not uncivil, that is factual. With regards to other files I am not comfortable making the non-free/pd-text call, and thus do not make it. I just treat all files tagged with a non-free tag equally. Your comment here is uncivil, you make assumptions about my actions that are completely wrong, you ignore the reasons for my message to him, and the follow up discussion. Just so that you know, Ill repeat myself, every single one of my non-free removals that cite a rationale issue where correct with the removals. They failed at minimum 10c. So I either expect an apology for your groundless claims and assumptions about my actions without bothering to check, or for you to leave the discussions related to me because you dont bother to do the your research. And if you think my note to Wikidemon was uncivil I think you should go re-read the policy. I made a completely factual statement about the issues revolving around another users edits. You should know I rarely make any assumptions about an editor's faith whether its good faith or bad I really dont care most of the time, I just tend to look at the facts of the case and let them speak for themselves ΔT The only constant 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are under community sanction for doing this. I find it nigh-on incomprehensible that you still don't feel that you have a problem with incivility.
It's not the NFCC issue. It's engaging in uncivil warnings or discussion with people.
This has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to review WP:CIVIL, my warning was not uncivil. Since you cannot be bothered to see the whole picture, the third door down on the left is the exit, please see yourself out. ΔT The only constant 06:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported this incident to WP:ANI and requested an uninvolved administrator to block you for unrepentant civility parole violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again read civil, my actions do not come close to violating it. Stop harassing me. ΔT The only constant 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I rarely make any assumptions about an editor's faith whether its good faith or bad". Perhaps you should re-read WP:CIVIL. The assumption of good faith is a requirement (especially for noobs), not an option. Buffs (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again please look at the all the facts. When you assume you make an ass out of u and me, I prefer the more pragmatic approach of reviewing the evidence and basing my actions off of that. If I make no assumptions I cannot assume that the editor is going good or bad, I approach the situation the same way, and typically make inquiries to the user about the reasons for their actions, and if their actions are violating policy I give them a note about what may happen, if they continue their current behavior. I would say that making no assumption either way is exactly what CIVIL is meant to be, it states that you shouldnt assume that the user is out to arm wp. Which I dont. So please dont try and twist my works to mean something that they do not. ΔT The only constant 06:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. What you "prefer" is irrelevant. Again, you are required to assume good faith. Whether it makes "an ass out of u or me" is quite immaterial. It's policy and you are obligated to follow it. Buffs (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Δ: Yet another damned if you do, damned if you don't case. If you leave a template message regarding this issue, you're taken out behind the woodshed because you violated the essay WP:DTTR and you violated WP:CIVIL because you left a template warning. If you leave a non-template message, nevermind that it was entirely accurate, you're taken out behind the woodshed because you left a warning message. I'm at least happy to see this proposal to have you blocked got as far as a lead duck. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geomerics use of NFUR image

Delta, Added Rationale in hidden text next to image. You had this image removed from the page citing poor rationale. Image on page meets all 10 points for NFUR. Let me know in detail if you have further issues. MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the image page. I do not see what section I would had a new rationale or is the template listed in WP:FURG place on the article page? I need clarification since I did not create the image page, I do not know where additional rationale should be added.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image wasn't deleted. It was removed from an article where it violated WP:NFCC #10c. There's a difference here on Wikipedia between "remove" and "delete". Nothing was deleted. The rationale you added was added properly. That said, the rationale and in fact its inclusion on this article is rather weak. There's no secondary sourced commentary regarding what the image depicts. It appears to be decorative; there's no tie to the text. Can you elaborate? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That current questioning makes Geomerics rationale for use stronger than the Battlefield 3 articles use. The Section in which the image appears in Geomerics clearly discusses the Enlighten technology being incorporated in the Frostbite 2 engine, which is used in Battlefield 3. The image is a demonstration of the technology is action. Why would this need to be spelled out anymore than it already is? In the Battlefield 3 article the image is not directly discussed, but its presence in the "Gameplay" section makes it relevant. Likewise, its inclusion on the Geomerics article is presented in context to the comments regarding the game.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you re-read the policy you will see that if you remove an image from the article, although the original is still else where on Wikipedia, it is still considered a deletion and requires notification be given to contributors and a 7 day interval for them to bring article into compliance.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to notification I found the following under the Enforcment section in WP:NFCC - A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. I this case 7 days in not required, however notification and a 2 day interval are still required. Immediate removal of an image from an article is not part of the power of the policy.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. That section only refers to deleting the image entirely, not to removing a particular use of it from an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: usage of the image; the text of the article says nothing about the image itself. All it says is that it can be seen in Battlefield 3. What about the image is significant? Right now, I could use any screenshot from the game to fill the same role. That's an obvious WP:NFCC #1 failure. There needs to be a connection between a non-free image's use and the text in which it is located because of our WP:NFCC policy. Else, we could use as many non-free images as we'd like from the game and never be in violation of WP:NFCC #1. As to deletion vs. removal, I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Deletion refers to an administrator physically removing a file or page from the public Wikipedia servers. Non-administrators do not have that ability. If you dispute this definition, I welcome you to raise the issue at WT:NFC. The idea that the policy you are quoting is applicable to removing images is, while highly inaccurate, rather novel and you may find such a discussion interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MJP, I often find myself less than in whole-hearted agreement with Hammersoft and Delta, but on this I'm afraid they're right -- removal is different from deletion; and images can be removed from articles at will. See for example this current thread at WP:VPP, where the policy consensus is quite clear.
  • As for the image itself, Geomeric's product is a lighting engine, so a still showing the effect of that lighting engine -- preferably in comparison to a competitor engine given the same number of clock cycles -- would be appropriate. But the reader needs to have explained to them exactly what in the image is so characteristic of Geomeric's technology, that distinguishes it from what might be seen using other code. Jheald (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jheald, although that is very insightful it does not mean that the current image is inappropriate. If you are able to find resources that show the comparison I invite you to contribute.MichaelJPierce (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammer, Please indicate by what policy then an image can be removed immediately. I see no clear policy that allows you to do this. You are mistaken that this is a WP:NFCC #1 as there is still no free equivalent for the image of the game or use of the Lighting technology in another game, you have cited this in order to push forward your argument , but has no basis in fact. Any screenshot from the game would still be the property of EA and fall under Non-Free use polices. I would gladly use an alternate if a free use one was available. But any screenshot would be a derivative work of the original game and therefore copyrighted by the original copyright holder.MichaelJPierce (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed to several times now, the image was removed under WP:NFCC #10c. You are welcome to disagree with the policy, but it is policy. The point of WP:NFCC #1 is replaceability with text. If the image isn't tied to the text, there's really not much argument that it needs to be in the article. I could add anything, say a screenshot from a 1950s TV show, for all the relevance it has. Tie the image to the text with secondary sourced discussion. Else, the image is superfluous. I think you really need to take these issues up at WT:NFC, because you're not believing what is being told to you by multiple people now. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone from the VG community, it is almost never needed to have a screenshot of a developer's game on their own page, simply because a screenshot says nothing from the developer - it looks cool, but it adds nothing to the reader about who the developer is. There may be a rare exception for a developer known for a specific style that is attributed to that developer, but the only possible one off the top of my head would id (w.r.t to Doom/Quake and the like). The only place where screenshots from published works are appropriate are on game or series articles and in several cases of talking about genres and gameplay elements. So I'd strongly recommend reconsidering the use of this screenshot in this scenario. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hammersoft how come whenever ΔT The only constant finds a disputed image your right there in his defense? It's a like a bulling tactic, it seems like you two are working concert to make sure whatever (Image)YOU think doesn't make the grade should be deleted. And when all else fails you have a bunch of you Admin buddies kick in to over whelm the consensus, and put down any opposition to your POV. Yes I have read over WP:NFCC and you don't alway have a clear cut case on some of your disputes! Jetijonez (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no "admin buddies" here. In fact, I have no buddies here whatsoever. I don't care who hates me or likes me here, as I've frequently stated. Are you accusing me of bullying? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, key word is it's "like", but getting back to real questions how is it, your here on his page everytime there is a disputed image? Coincidence? Jetijonez (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Special:Watchlist, we both use it and have each others talk page on it. ΔT The only constant 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Just wanted to compliment you on your fantastic additions of archival backups to so many links at The Avengers (2012 film). I find it an uphill battle to get fellow editors to add WebCitation or Archive.org links routinely, and I'm bowled over by the comprehensiveness of your efforts at that article. Do you do it all manually, or is there a bot that helps? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use an assisted script, to make a request see tools:~betacommand/webcite.html, which is where a request was made for that page. ΔT The only constant 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WebCite
Hey, thanks for archiving the citations in the Singapore Exchange article. You rock. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
np I'm working through the complete webcite backlog. ΔT The only constant 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for archiving
Great job working through the backlog, your work ensures the preservation of Wikipedia!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request exemption of restrictions ΔT The only constant 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to List of Rozen Maiden characters

Hello, Δ

I have contested your removal of images from List of Rozen Maiden characters. I encountered the article during my routine patrol and it seems to me that the use of non-free images in those article is well-justified, according to WP:NFC and WP:NFCC.

I hope you forgive me for saying this: Recently a lot Wikipedians and Commonists have started to have thug-of-war discussion of "Yes, it is - No, it isn't - Yes, it is, ..." with me (or an extended version of it). I know you are a good Wikipedian but I strongly advise that we take this issue to a multiple-image FfD, a third opinion, an RFC or wherever there is more than three input, if all that we have to tell each other is "I disagree, I think I am right". Again, I am sorry that I had to mention this unpleasant point.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im re-removing the files, see my note on the talk page. ΔT The only constant 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are about to violate The three-revert rule . Funny, I thought you are a good Wikipedian, not an edit warrior... Perhaps you should read and stick to WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand, note that removals due to failure of NFC are excempt to 3RR. Maybe the other editors should stick to WP:NFC and discuss on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only removals that unquestionably violate the non-free content policy (NFCC) are exempt (WP:3RRNO, emphasis original). It seems still to be disputed whether that is the case here. Better to discuss further on the talk page, than just hammer the revert button. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do, they can be replaced with one image showing the style, read WP:NFLISTS:
"An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed.
How unquestionably do you want it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you see as the point of the images. As I understand it, the point was not to show the general style of the animation, the point was to show identifying images of the key characters where no group image was available, as for example images of selected particular characters might be shown in a list of characters in a live-action TV series. Jheald (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I'd appreciate if you stick with the reply formatting standard of message threads. Anyway, as for questionable status, Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. When there is no consensus for removal, then it is not unquestionable. Actually, according to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, the mere objection of me here means lack of consensus. 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not the point of unquestionable here - this is an unquestionable violation of the policy. And, no, you mistake what is consensus here, see Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Disputed.3F. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That personal essay by a user who has since left the project was written well before the adoption of WP:NFLISTS which crystallised guidance in this area. Nobody here is disputing that WP:NFLISTS is the appropriate guidance, which has the consensus of the community behind it. What is disputed is whether these images fall foul of WP:NFLISTS. That, to my mind, depends on whether an official group shot can or can't be found of all these characters together. But on the evidence available so far at this stage, I see no proven case that there is an "unquestionable" violation of policy here. Jheald (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to List of Jiggy McCue books

You keep removing the images on List of Jiggy McCue books. It's only the book covers, so why is it overuse? Rcsprinter (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see the talk page, for more details, but NFC is not allowed in lists. ΔT The only constant 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just saw the message you left on my talk page, it was very nice of you. :) I did not reliaze this and agreed with Rcsprinter123, though have now looked at the talk page as you suggested and reliazed my mistake, i am sorry but you could have just told me. ;) MayhemMario 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in my edit summary and the talk page note. ΔT The only constant 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, okay. My intentions werent vandalism though. ;) MayhemMario 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not warn you about vandalism, I gave you a warning about non-free content usage. ΔT The only constant 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh never mind... MayhemMario 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle

Triangle
Puffin Let's talk! 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Δ,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

History of CBS: mea culpa

My apologies. Another editor extracted a big chunk of the CBS article and attempted to make this new, second article out of it. The NFURs for the photos are complete for the first article, not for this offshoot attempt. Again, my apologies. I reverted my own reversion. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:ANEW

Although I haven't (yet) seen anyone willing to stand up and say that they think the image-heavy version of the article is NFCC compliant, I'm sure you're aware that going to 4RR, 5RR, etc., on these, even if you're right, will have a detrimental effect on the efforts of those of us who would prefer you not be topic-banned. There are people who are on a crusade to ban you, and there are people who will defend you no matter what, but there are also a great deal of people who are easily swayed by persuasive statements that you're unnecessarily stirring up drama, even if those persuasive statements are completely inaccurate. Just let Hammersoft or someone else do the 4th revert. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill highlight another point, none of the editors except myself have engaged in discussion on the talk page..... ΔT The only constant 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#.CE.94. *shrug* I am really sorry it has come to this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirects being marked as free

Your "check files" script doesn't follow redirects on images, with the result being that it mistakenly identifies images transcluded via a redirect as free, whether free or not. Example; on Gail Platt the image File:The Platt Family.JPG is transcluded via a redirect from File:Hillman.JPG. The script identifies Hillman.jpg, a redirect, as being free. In reality of course the redirect transcludes a non-free file (which doesn't have a rationale for this use). Can this be fixed? Your edits like this one have gone a long way to rectifying the problem in general, but I'm hoping the script can take it into account too. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!


BeatlesLover (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassment", "Stalking", "Bullying"

In relation to this rant, then per WP:NPA, you will immediately cease making these accusations against me without providing the proof you think would stand up and support your making them. You can claim all you want regarding my views on NFCC (which are as ever, wrong, certainly where my input & policy knowledge is concerned), but your allegations as regards me being the perpetrator of harassment, bullying, etc etc, against you, are as baseless and disgusting as they've always been. These are serious charges requiring bullet proof evidence there and then, you do not get a free pass to throw them around without any at all, just because you forever see yourself as a victim for enforcing NFCC the way you personally choose to, on a large scale and in a wholly disputed and disruptive manner. I should not have to remind you that in terms of behaviour that is just expressing simple personal animosity against another editor, in situations that have no relevance to NFCC at all and were not made in any community discussion about it or anything else, then I have cast iron diffs showing how it's you who has stalked and harassed me, not the other way around. And not just from all those years ago before your ban, but as recently as last month, as bold as brass. If you want to dispute any of this, then let's go, we can tack another Delta sanction violation report onto whichever noticeboard the current discussions about you have spilled over into by now. Or you can just strike it & say you won't do it again, as directed to by WP:NPA. Even though I do let a lot of shit slide as regards attempts at character assasination by editors who cannot handle what I have to say about their policy knowledge & edits, these sorts of accusations are not one of them. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon usage

Please initiate a RFC or Village Pump discussion to resolve the issue of whether Flagicon or NFCC are the overriding case; your assertion that NFCC is runs contrary to many years worth of extensive Flagicon use of fair-use images in cases where free images aren't available.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flag icon issue, it is an NFCC issue: there is no rationale for the use of the those images on those pages - and these appear to not be of the trivial type - they are flat out missing rationals. Eg: File:People's Mujahedeen of Iran logo.png is used 4 times but only has 1 rationale. This must be fixed before the image can be reused. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert, Ive given you a final warning on your talk page for violating NFCC, by adding files to articles without valid rationales, if you continue to do to so to make a WP:POINT you will be blocked for violating our NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the problem. You went and repeatedly edit warred with Wikidemon without once explaining the specific problem there. Which then confused me, too.
And, you have just failed AGF here as well.
If you had just once put in an edit summary that indicated that the flag needed FURs for those articles it would have been trivial for me to do that from the beginning.
I assume good faith that you didn't realize that you failed to communicate that. Your assumption could lead one to assume I was being POINTy. However, you could have assumed good faith with at least one clarifying comment first rather than jumping to assuming the worst immediately. You could also have checked my recent edits and noticed I was, in fact, adding FURs properly to images where it was appropriate, and consider that perhaps in this case I didn't notice or had forgotten to do that one.
This is the reason you come under criticism so much.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again you must be reading with your eyes closed Because I did clearly state why I removed the files. ΔT The only constant 04:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free flag icons is not wide spread. There isnt any single non-free flag except File:Nypd_flag.png that is being used in more than 4 places. So please take some time and do your research before placing your foot in your mouth. ΔT The only constant 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You always use that (or do recently). You failed to clarify the specifics with Wikidemon in approximately 8 edit warring opportunities where you reverted his reverts, not once actually saying "It hasn't got a FUR for this article".
Template or blank reverts which don't address the specific concerns don't help clarify the situation to the other party. I know this was always obvious to you, because you acted multiple times. The first time, it should have been clear that it wasn't evident to Wikidemon. He did not go around and revert everything you did today or anything, he had a specific content issue with the one set of articles (I think just that one set, without going back and rechecking everything). Again, you failed to AGF and slow down enough to identify that he hadn't followed you, and you failed to AGF with me when I made the same mistake he did.
You instead seem to have assumed we were both just being shits and being POINTy with you.
I understand how you could have come to believe that, but it requires lack of normally expected AGF and lattitude and willingness to communicate with people when something's wrong.
When I thought it was colliding policies, I came here and without prejudice asked you to go get a clarifying consensus. I didn't assume you'd specifically picked articles I watchlist and have been involved in to target me for our recent disputes, I didn't assume you'd made any technical mistakes. I didn't insult your intentions or give you a warning. I just asked you to go get a policy RFC going for what I (at the time) thought the policy issue was.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive warned Wikidemon in the last few days for doing exactly what he did here again, re-adding files I removed without addressing the issue. Also no RFC is needed NFCC > flag MOS. NFCC is crystal clear with regards to usage of non-free content. You automatically loose the right to claim AGF when you are actively engaged in NFC related discussions, blindly join an edit war that violates NFC, re-insert large volumes of NFC without rationales. Instead of saying "Oh gosh, I dont know why he removed that file, I had better leave it the way it is and go ask" you choose to edit war, and violate NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're continuing to assume bad faith. That's ... quite amazing.
I went and fixed the problem as soon as it was clear to me what the problem was. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not assuming anything, your actions speak for themselves. ΔT The only constant 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. If you are clear with people all the time, most of them will go fix problems and not bite back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was clear, or did you not bother to read my edit summaries? ΔT The only constant 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above - you failed to address the specific complaint Wikidemon raised, which if read indicates that he was confused about the rationale for deletion or problem with the image. You confused him, as his responses made evident. His responses and your lack of addressing his specific responses, only repeating either the same boilerplate again and again or reverting with no additional comment, did not resolve the situation.
I know what you think you were saying. But you failed to detect that not just one, but two other people had misunderstood, and assumed bad faith (that we were intentionally being shits) rather than pause and try and communicate in a more clear manner. Again - we expect editors and admins to try to communicate more clearly - and that includes situations where you're technically correct but the other party is confused about what's going on. You having been right - and I am not disputing that, as my having gone to fix it should demonstrate - does not excuse your communications style's role in the length of time that it took to untangle it all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ&oldid=438361318"