Hello Dominictimms! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just Heditor review18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your changes to the article (if they are contested) on the talk page, and not just in edit summaries. The goal is to work out consensus, and then make the change discussion is warranted. Happy editing to you! Cross posted to Wiki-newbie Teke17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you please explain why you are taking so many images out of the Category:American football? Several of these images, such as a photo of a team mascto, seem very relevant to me. You should really be using an informative edit summary when making these types of changes. That is helpful and courteous to your fellow editors. Please provide an explanation for this or people will naturally consider reversing your changes. Thanks, Johntex\talk00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've looked into your changes in more detail. Many of them are good changes, but I am convinced that some of them are not. I have reverted the ones that seem like bad moves to me. For instance, photos of a college football mascot and of a tail-gate party certainly belong somewhere in the American Football category system. Moving them out to Photos of the United States is not a good move as it is moving them from a fairly specific category into a less specific one. Best, Johntex\talk04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have decategorised them altogether. They don't belong anywhere in Wikipedia, which is Wikimedia's encyclopedia not its image repository. An image is not an encyclopedia article. Wikimedia commons is Wikimedia's image repository. Dominictimms14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally some of these images should be on Commons. However, we do host images here. You understand that right? Wikipeida absolutely is partially an image repository. Commons is not a suitable place for some images, after all.
The main thing is that untill/unless they are moved, it is not proper to decategorize them. They need to stay in their relevant categories. That gives them the best chance of being found and used appropriately. You are welcome to add additional relevant categories such as "GFDL images" but you should not remove other relevant categories. Johntex\talk18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion and it is too bad you are being so adamant about this. Your edit sumaries, now that you are using them, are a little rude.
Image:Woman at a tailgate party for a UT football game.JPG is already used in several articles yet you say in your edit summary that you don't see how it could be useful in any article. There is no reason for you to insult the photograph.
Likewise, Image:Partial stadium collapse at Big12 college football championship - 2005.JPG is already used in multiple articles. That includes an article about a football game where the accident occurred. That makes it relevant to the category of American Football. It was an accident at an American football game. All aspects of the game are included in that category: from the plays to the equipment to stadiums, etc.
I am reverting your changes. I don't see why it bothers you to have these images correctly classified, but categories apply to images just as to articles. Feel free to move these images to Commons if you prefer, so long as you restore all the links. Johntex\talk16:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting your changes. Can you not see the patent absurdity of having just two marginal images in the category? If consensus was on your side, lots of people would be putting images in the category, but they are not. You are just making an unnecessary mess. Dominictimms19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see nothing absurd about the images being in that category since that category applies to the images. Also, they are no longer the only pictures in that category. Two new pictures have been added. The two new pictures can't be moved to Commons because they are here under a "fair use" justification. Since Commons does not accept "fair use" images, they have to be hosted here. I am sure other fair use images pertaining to American Football are already here on Wikipedia. We need to concentrate on putting the appropriate images into the category vs taking them out. Images that are hosted on Wikipedia should be properly categorized on Wikipedia. Johntex\talk03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look on the Category page itself, you will see that there is a sub-heading called "Media in category "American football". Why do you suppose that is there if images are not supposed to be categorized?
Hey, I want to say that I appreciate all of the work you have done on reorganizing the American Football articles. It looks like you have some good ideas, but as you can see above you may have unintentionally ruffled a few feathers. I just want to affirm that you are doing good work, however it is hard to interpret your motives if you don't use the Edit Summary bar. It is simply good wiki etiquette to let others know what you are doing, and the best way to do that is in the edit summary. Just a quick note like "moving article to a better category" would be great, and it would help the collaborative nature of wikipedia, as others will be more easily able to see what you are doing, and help when needed. Again, thanks for helping out with the American Football articles. If you haven't already done so, you might want to try joining the Football projects, located at:
Hey, I noticed that you are still doing work on categorization and cleanup of articles. Most of your work looks good, but again there are some issues that you are causing. First of all, you seem to be unaware of the wikipedia ban on repeatedly reverting edits. Your edits here and here are being disputed by other editors. I take no stand on the merit of your actions or of theirs. I only note that there is a dispute, and the place to take out disputes is on the talk page of the articles or project in question. If your actions are reverted by others, please go to the talk page to try to establish consensus through collaboration, and not by repeatedly committing the same actions. If no one objects to what you are doing, keep it up. However, once an objection has been made, hammer out your differences in a civil manner rather than just repeatedly making the same edits over and over. Again, I see your work as positive and beneficial to the project on the whole, but please be aware that two editors, both acting in good faith can often arrive at different conclusions. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways to ameliorate those disputes, and the talk pages are designed exactly for that purpose. --Jayron32|talk|contribs16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing nothing wrong. The allegation that I am not entering into discussion is 100% wrong, as is the allegation that I have broken any rules. Dominictimms19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, am still not, and will continue to not accuse you of anything. Please do not imply that you are being persecuted or attacked in any way. Such comments as you left on my talk page do not lend themselves to an attitude of cooperation. As I said above, and I quote myself, "two editors, both acting in good faith can often arrive at different conclusions." No rules need be broken, no accussations need be leveled, and no defense needs to be made for the fact that rational human beings can arrive at different conclusions, and as such will lead to conflict. I was merely noting that a conflict existed between you and another editor, and was recommending that you reach a decision on a talk page before repeating the same action over and over again. It is not enough to simply note what you are doing, and keep doing it anyways, the goal of a talk page is to reach a consensus before repeatedly engaging in the same behavior. This is not about breaking rules. I still have seen no evidence that you have broken any rule, and until you do I will never accuse you of such. I have been nothing but civil and encouraging of what you are doing, and take umbridge at the implication that the above two posts state anything otherwise. I continue to recognize that the work you do is good and beneficial to the project; however, a fact that cannot be denied is that certain edits you are making continue to be contested. I make no statement about who is in the right or wrong, merely to note that continuing to make those edits without reaching a consensus is counterproductive. If you feel that consensus and policy is on your side, and other editors are acting in an inappropriate or disruptive manner, there are ways to handle that. But dropping accusations of incivility on the talk page of someone who continues to support the work you are doing is entire misplaced. If you feel that the edits you are making are being unfairly reverted by another editor, you can ask for mediation of the situation at a number of places, including:
However, please stop acting as though you are being accused of any rulebreaking. You are not. I am merely noting that, by performing the same edit over and over, you invite conflict rather than solve it. It should be noted that this is true of whatever editors are doing the same to you. Good luck and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to make simple improvements. I am not interested in all the stress and nonsense you are suggesting. Wikipedia is obviously disfunctional, so I am no longer interested. The bad things I have heard about it are true. Dominictimms09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I believe I have politely explained to you why you were misguided in what you were doing. Good luck in your future endeavors. Johntex\talk20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if they're unfit to appear in an encyclopedia, why dont you just go ahead and nominate them all for a group AFD?--Urthogie15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you should note that Urthogie created many of these articles in order to have them nominated for a group AfD so as to avoid the presence of one of the oldest articles in this group: Allegations of Israeli apartheid - which should be called simply Israeli apartheid and discuss the use of the term by those who use it. (Just as do New anti-semitism and Pallywood). There is no equivalent known as "French apartheid" or "Jordanian apartheid" but that hasn't stopped Urthogie and others from creating these articles to make a WP:POINT having failed to succeed in eliminating the existence of their core target. I would urge against succumbing to his request for a group AfD. I do recommend however getting involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. Tiamat18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Evilclown93 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
