January 21, 2007 archive start[edit]

Removing images from articles[edit]

I have started a new thread on this subject at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removing_images_on_sight. Feel free to weigh in. --Oden 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and copyright[edit]

User:Dicklyon keeps adding big block quotes after I have rewritten the article on Lenna (diff). Feel free to deal with it, because I am not reverting another article today (I will probably have to send this to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV). --Oden 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

With regards to your comments on talk:standard test image: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this diff. Please be civil and assume good faith. --Oden 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPA:

Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute.

Considering your rifling through my user page and sub pages, I would say you are creating a dispute out of being blocked. You need to read what you preach to others. Cburnett 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1RR?[edit]

I had a look at your log, and you blocked a total of three people under 2006. I am concerned that, apart from your apparent lack of knowledge of some of our core policies (such as WP:IUP), your knowledge of how to use your admin privileges have become rusty. I don't wish to de-sysop you, but you should seriously brush up on your reading list.

You blocked me for two reverts within 24 hours (01:19, 15 January 2007 and 03:34, 15 January 2007). I know that 3RR is not a fixed rule, but usually the rule is more than three bad-faith reverts in 24 hours. Maybe we should call it 1RR? And since they were good-faith edits (as stated on my talk page, the article talk page and the page history), maybe you should also have a look a those in the future? --Oden 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making this very personal:

That's three. You might learn to look closer before you call my counting skills into question and before you THREATEN to de-sysop me. Your reverts disrupted the page and no one agrees with your rationale behind doing so. No one. The IFD will settle if your interpretation is correct but it would seem that current consensus is that you are not. Cburnett 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:3RR states "Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing." More than. Not the third revert, the fourth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the same page:

It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique...

Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

Oden used reverting as a means to an end despite starting discussion surrounding the very content he was reverting. This indicates to me that he had no care nor interest in really discussing the issue at hand: only that he was right and that's that. He refused to listen to editors whom disagreed with his interpretation and he called it vandalism. This is followed up by him attempting to circumvent the IFD by speedying the images.

The key point of 3RR which is absent from your copy/paste is that reverting is not the answer to content disputes: it is not an entitlement nor a hard-fast absolute rule. Oden used reverting as his means to say "I'm right, you're wrong" in full and complete knowledge that civil discourse was taking place under both the TFD & IFD he started and on talk:Standard test image.

Thank you for your comment. Cburnett 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely disagree, but you knew I'd say that. Four reverts over three days is hardly edit warring. I'd go further: removing misused fair use images is clearly a special circumstance and doing so is unlikely to be edit warring on the part of the remover. Civil discourse is lovely, but fair use is essentially a legal and policy matter, just like WP:BLP. There's only one right answer, and it doesn't involve having fair use images on user subpages or for decorative purposes on templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss the status of the images in question, then you are welcome to the TFD, IFD, and talk:standard test image. My page is not the place for that. Oden was hiding behind WP:FUC to stalk and edit war. Cburnett 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image in user namespace[edit]

Hello!

You have used fair use images in your user namespace (Image:Uno Draw 2 card.jpg, Image:Uno Reverse card.jpg, Image:Uno Wild card.jpg and Image:Uno Wild Draw 4 card.jpg in User:Cburnett/GFDL images). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed them on these grounds.

Sincerely, Oden 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have a personal bone to pick with me (examing my block log, examing my image uploads, etc.), I would like to inform you that it is courteous to retain the links to the images. Cburnett 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of episodes[edit]

During my involuntary expulsion I took the liberty of examining your upload log. You have uploaded hundreds of screenshots, and they are used in lists of episodes. For instance:

The use of fair use images on these pages are in violation of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria # 3 and 8. I cannot remove these images since that would be stalking. However, if I were to encounter these images in an unrelated context (for instance while going through Category:Lists of science fiction television series episodes) I can and will orphan them.

Personally I am disgusted when I see the use of fair use images in this manner. The doctrine of fair use is what allows us to use Picasso's Guernica, or to quote Ray Bradbury, not this type of frivolous nonsense. --Oden 12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should realize you are by far not the first person to address images in episode lists. Welcome to the game. Second, before you remove images you need to realize what you are jumping into. It is clear to me that you are substituting "montage" for "any number of images". Cburnett 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third, I am warning you now that since has been discussed many times that you should make discussion first as thus far you have not stated anything original as an argument against keeping the images. Cburnett 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stress this enough...[edit]

It is not an edit war when implementing policy. That you are an administrator and don't know this is the scariest part of all. You should seriously consider handing in the mopp, bucket and keyes, because right now from my viewpoint you are doing more harm than good.--Oden 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A montage to me is a collection of random images showing the same idea. Images of sheep are a set of random images of sheep: they are all just images of sheep. Standard test images are not random. They are specific images. Furthermore, my point of developing each image into a section to itself only gets things farther away from being a montage (even under your definition). And this is what you don't get about edit warring. Neither I nor anyone else can do this while you absolutely insist on remove the images. Your edit warring has disrupted the editing process and prohibited things from progressing. You still don't understand this but I'm not going to suggest you're a sub-par editor and you should hand in your account because of it. Your edit warring on standard test image has done more harm than good.

I am not the only one saying these words to you. Another admin agrees with me and stated so on your talk page and other places. Curiously enough, no one has stepped up and sided with you. And you still don't understand what makes these images unique and special.

I also appreciate you sifting through my images. [1] Given your attitude above, I find little reason to assume good faith on your part...you know, because you insult me as an editor and an admin. Cburnett 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, neat. You even put it up for speedy deletion on commons and didn't even let me know. That's awesome dude. Really awesome. Cburnett 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Atomic Energy Lab[edit]

Could you please check Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors in Did you know.... There is a question regarding a DYK entry by you. Thanks!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there for me to correct... And I didn't write the DYK about the energy lab. I also didn't know it was recalled, just that it didn't sell well because it was expensive. Cburnett 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long[edit]

Hello!

First of all I don't want you to have the impression that I am leaving Wikipedia entirely because of your actions, they were more of a trigger. When you blocked me you opened my eyes to the possibility that the thankless task which I had undertaken really is hopeless (see my user page).

As far as stalking is concerned, online stalking refers to out-of-process harassment. Stalking would be for instance nit-picking all of a user's contributions, as opposed to those which are relevant to the context, or failing to separate a user's contributions to Wikipedia from their personal life. WP:STALK says:

"This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful."

I really hope that you never encounter a real cyberstalker. I have suffered harassment several times when removing copyrighted content. One editor created three puppet accounts and vandalized by userspace repeatedly (like here). I've also had the dubious pleasure of users creating vandal accounts with descriptive terminology appended to my username (User:Odenass, User:Odinass). Luckily no one has attempted to become involved in my personal life (yet).

My general impression is that you appear to be a valuable member of the community. However, you need to improve your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, especially when acting as an administrator. I still consider your action in my case and your abilities as an administrator questionable.

I would also urge you in the future when acting as a administrator to review any matter thoroughly and attempt to enter into a dialogue with the editor in question. You should also try to get more experience by monitoring WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Special:Recentchanges (WP:RCP), Special:Newpages (WP:NPP), Category:Administrative backlog and relevant WP:CSD categories. With more experience, you will hopefully learn to make fewer mistakes (although avoiding them entirely will probably be impossible).

And remember what it says in WP:BLOCK: "Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith". Blocking can in such instances only serve to deter, to the detriment of all.

Best wishes, Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin now![edit]

I think #4 needs to be emphasized more. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Smile[edit]

Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) =January 1, 2007 archive end[reply]