User talk:GraphicArtist1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fruit flies[edit]

Hi, I'm not taking a position on the actual inclusion of the pictures in the article, but could you please tag the extra images you aren't using for deletion. If you would like an image to be deleted edit the image description page and add the tag {{db-author}}. Here is a log of your uploads. Thanks. Oh also, WP:BJAODN has noticed your images :) - cohesion 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you or others think this is a bad joke or nonsense. It is a graphic to illustrate the observed speciation in the lab. If you think it is funny, you should argue with Diane Dodd, the scientist who observed this behavior. She was published in a peer reviewed journal. Meanwhile, I think it helps explain the article. Thanks for the tip on the db-author--most appreciated. GraphicArtist1 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do actually think it's funny, but am aware that it is explaining an actual experiment. Personally I wouldn't mind it staying on the article, but others might disagree :) - cohesion 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your a biologist. I thought biologists might like the image. I changed it to make it more anatomically correct. Let me know what you think. GraphicArtist1 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). Maybe you should check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

Okay, you made it to BJAODN — congratulations. Now, that's enough, thank you. Please stop messing with the article or I will have to block you, if only for a while to let you cool off. You might also want to see if your contributions are more welcome at Uncyclopedia than here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith. Please don't. The graphic is find for an encyclopedia. GraphicArtist1 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Modern clock chris kemps 01 with Octagon-warning.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where I vandalized? I was just reading up and about to request an advocate to help me via the Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/USERNAME mechanism. I moved it to the discussion page and did not revert on the article, and did not revert. Now I cannot even get an advocate. It was a good drawing. Please unblock me so that I can get an advocate. This kind of behavior, banning me when I am trying to help the article's readability, is not good. GraphicArtist1 02:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

unblock please[edit]

Also, after I was blocked, my edits were reverted. This was not vandalism. Before I was blocked, I moved the differences of opinion regarding my graphic to here

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GraphicArtist1 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I wanted to request an advocate to help me see why the graphic is "unencyclopediac". Ilmari Karonen states on his or her page that I can reverse regardless of wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, this does not work once you've been blocked. In any event, I added a useful graphic to the speciation page, and at about the same time I was blocked, was also making copy edits to the speciation article. I don't think either the graphic or the copy edits were vandalism. I was fighting vandalism, and after 3 different users reverted my graphic, I moved my discussion to the speciation talk page. But I was banned before I could engauge with the banner, and he did not take it to the discussion page. While nobody is perfect, I think Ilmari Karonen missed the good work I was attempting to do, and just viewed the graphic I designed as vandalism, either that, or the subsequent copy edits (neither of which are vandalism in my opinion, see diffs above). I just noticed that after I was blocked, he reverted one of my copy edits (which I planned to continue).

Decline reason:

Even if your edits were perfectly appropriate, edit warring is not allowed. —Centrxtalk • 11:22, 8 January 2007 (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.

Image:FruitFlySpeciation7.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FruitFlySpeciation7.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)