|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Editor review
- 2 height &...
- 3 Veganism and....
- 4 Re: Adminship
- 5 3RR rule
- 6 Take a look at two changes ... to the intro and risks
- 7 Monarchy in Canada
- 8 British Monarchy
- 9 Poker slang
- 10 British Monarchy mediation page
- 11 Bridgemark logo
- 12 Advice
- 13 DYK
- 14 Poker slang redux
- 15 User:Ramzk001
- 16 User:Sarah Goldberg
- 17 Racism in Iran
- 18 Faith Fenton
- 19 Wye Marsh
- 20 Rhinoceros Party
- 21 RE: archiving
- 22 Rhinos r us
- 23 2005 and lack of civility
- 24 (Insert witty headline)
- 25 A request
- 26 Strange indeed
- 27 Image Question
- 28 Subst
- 29 AMERICAN
- 30 Commons
- This was one of the more challenging disputes I have come across, and I don't think I handled as well as I could have. I was hoping for pointers on how to handle any similarly difficult situations better in the future. Tim Vickers 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not beating myself up, just looking for suggestions on how I could avoid or defuse such situations in the future. Thanks for the comments. Tim Vickers 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if you want pdfs of any of those articles e-mailing to you... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- "In Soviet Canuckistan..." Man!, I almost bust a gut laughing! Plus you might get to join User:Trialsanderrors in the honour role of editors that have been accused of being my sockpuppets (there's even a special barnstar...) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, (and nice work on the article), Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
WileyD.. I just wanted to try to respond here, since I have had no luck getting anyone to look at the case concerning the veganism pages seriously. If you're someone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia more than the current expression of its guidelines (as I am), I hope you'll agree that not having a page like that link to _any_ kind of contrary information is a sheer failure in your duty to the public. It would be like the suicide page not containing a link to the prevention hotline, or the Drug page going on about how great heroin is without ever mentioning the other side.
I need someone to understand what I'm saying - to see that SlimVirgin and some of these other editors are partisans, and that in general the rules aren't what matters here. It's not even labeled as a controversial or potentially imbalanced page! The editors won't let me add even and EMPTY opposing/alternative viewpoints section. This isn't a situation that they are empowered to solve; I need someone to look at the issue with a sharper eye for the needs of society and the complexities of this issue. Wikipeda is too important in the modern world to let this issue vanish because I'm not a senior editor or an academic.
The main thing is, it's not even a subject for debate I want added - it's just that animals don't do anything except sit around and eat in feedlots. That's what a feedlot is, literally, and that fact alone changed my life! But it took me years to find, because of the expression "factory farm" and the rhetoric vegans choose and propogate. And I feel I am very remiss in my duties to the world if I leave wikipedia in this state.
Can you help me, somehow? Please? Repeat2341 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about it, but I've been engaged in a long and bitter dispute with a particularly intrangegent user, and it has taught me the hard way that dealing with Wiki rule breakers is not fun. I don't particularly want to end up the monster in every crank's closet. It's hard enough to explain to people the concept of neutrality, but if they don't want to hear it, it becomes impossible. Thanks for offering though. Serendipodous 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read it also.01001 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are an admins. I hope you realize that Wikipedia has some very serious policy problems or you are part of the problem.01001 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is disheartening that you being an admins do not see that Wikipedia policy does not work in theory or practice. I would hope that somehow policy could be improved but if those in power do not even see the forest through the trees I guess this is not likely.01001 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at two changes ... to the intro and risks
I repaired the Intro ... immediately reverted by Avraham. You can guess his affiliation. Look at his comment in history. Please compare the two versions.
And then Jakew reverts fixes to Risks. Please compare the two versions.
No attempt was made to discuss. Both repairs drew on prior consensus.
I entered the intro and risks repairs separately, so you can compare. Then I put in the honest version (which needs lots of work, taken from a prior consensus).
Bring in other help? There are five members of the cabal. The Topic is ridiculous and bad for Wiki.TipPt 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments about this on my talk-page, the part about the content of the source belongs on the talk-page of the article. The personal-advice part comes across as no better than a pissy jab that does not rightly belong anywhere in Wikipedia, and impression strengthened by the gratuitous abuse of the edit-summary likewise. The assumption I made was only natural, even if mistaken. Please aim for a less personal, more matter-of-fact tone in any future communications with me and (preferably) with other editors. -- Lonewolf BC 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that Lonewolf is attempting to insert a similar POV that the Commonwealth Realms are not in a personal union relationship at British monarchy. You seem to have a good grasp on the facts; perhaps you'd like to weigh in. Cheers. --G2bambino 21:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't intend to "recruit" you in any way; it just seemed from Monarchy in Canada that you had an issue with Lonewolf's contention against the personal union idea. If it came across differently, I apologise. New information is, of course, always welcome. --G2bambino 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wily - Can I ask you to reconsider your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang names for poker hands. As I count it, there are 6 votes to delete and 2 votes to keep. Both editors who voted keep really failed to address the concerns raised by the delete voters and also both refused to engage in discussion regarding their attitudes (something I think warrants discounting their opinions, since it is impossible to reach consensus without discussion). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You should be aware that this article has been renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang names for poker hands (2nd nomination): "Closing admin ignored strong consensus for deletion, and inappropriately editorialized an advocacy position counter to the consensus"... Λυδαcιτγ 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Just a note, the shift to DRV is not a reflection on you. I as well saw no consensus for any action - as far as I am concerned, you acted correctly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
British Monarchy mediation page
Replying to your comment here (I didn't want to clutter that page any further, since it's not really the right venue for such discussion):
I agree with most of what you're saying, however there a couple of areas where we diverge: firstly, G2bambino clearly is involved in edit wars in order to ensure that his own POV remains - in this article it's his POV regarding the meaning of phrases like, "the British monarch" and he's hit 3RR twice in the last two days trying to defend that (and again on July 6, before the page was protected). Meanwhile, as far as I can see, everyone else involved in the discussion about it disagrees with those reversions. That's a problem in my view, not just because consensus is being disrespected, but also because repeated reverts up to, but not in breach of 3RR is itself considered a policy violation: as WP:3RR states, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day...Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". (He's not the only one, of course, but that shouldn't diminish his responsibility.)
Regarding being pedantic, obviously it's no crime for a person to be pedantic, but pedantic edits can become a serious problem since they tend to detract from the quality of the article. G2bambino's edits to this one form a good example of that: as far as I can tell, he has become so fixated on defending his interpretation of what "British monarch" (and similar phrases) means, that he seems to not be able to see that even if the phrase is as problematic as he claims, any ambiguity has been eliminated by the context in which it has been used. It's a case of being unable to see the forest for the trees, I think.
Regards, Hux 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree that there is any valid fair use rationale for a copyrighted reproduction of a logo when we could get a free one. Maybe we can ask the copyright holder to release it under the GFDL? Anyway, if you want to undelete the GIF and clean it up, I have no problem with that. There is an ongoing debate over such matters; another example is when someone uploads a copyright map to a military history article. Since it is possible for someone to draw a map and release it under a free license, the copyright map almost always gets deleted. I tend to fall on the side of removing the copyrighted material whenever possible. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I'd like to get a third opinion from Quadell, as he has quite a bit of experience with image copyright. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just so you understand, I've been through situations like this before at Wikipedia, but this time it seems like no other editors/admins are stepping up to deal with TharkunColl; hence, I probably come across looking like an edit warrior because I'm the only one taking the guy on - at British monarchy, that is. Of course, you were of great help at Monarchy in Canada. We'll see how things progess tomorrow. Cheers. --G2bambino 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that it is you who are reverting against consensus, not me. TharkunColl 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Poker slang redux
Wily - I moved all of the relevant entries to wiktionary and speedied List of slang names for poker hands. I had posted a note at DRV asking if anyone objected, no one did. I also expressed my intentions at Talk:List of slang names for poker hands, no one objected there either. I think this is a solution amenable to everyone. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks for your help, and sorry for any headaches. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I softblocked this username, because it was an account which was being shared by several editors, against policy. Autoblock was didabled, so creating a different username is acceptable. Her pages have been altered since I was there, making this difficult to track. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Racism in Iran
What happened with the racism in Iran section? There are sections on Niger and Ivory Coast, but Iran appears to be uniquely devoid of any racism.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am certain that if I add anything on Iran, it will be immediately reverted. So I will wait until the Iran section is being developed and work in co-operation with others, rather than just end up in an edit war. It is better that a team of people work together and seek some sort of agreement on this section.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
*laugh* Nice image choices. Shame that we can't even find an image of the party's actual logo, though. Bearcat 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for weighing in and for your counsel. Yes: it is most frustrating to be harassed by these editors for not what. I must learn to ignore, but this admittedly becomes difficult when my actions are not the root of the problem and others just seem to be sh*t-disturbing or getting involved in issues which really do not involve them -- you can probably guess which editors I am referring to. In any event, I will be vigilant in enhancing my Wikiquette. Thanks again! Corticopia 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Rhinos r us
There isn't a copyright notice for the photo itself, just for the whole article. One could conceivably contact those copyright holders to find out who has the copyright on the photo, but given the typical lifespan of a rhino, Cornelius has to be either dead or close to it by now, so we might be able to make a legitimate fair use claim. Bearcat 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
2005 and lack of civility
Just saw the whole "list of poker terms" fiasco that transpired. I had been attempting to help with the editing of that page previously, however dealing with 2005 proved to be impossible. I saw he was rude to you as well and thought I'd drop you a line to see what is usually done about editors such as himself. In every interaction of his that I've seen he's utterly classless. Natster237`
(Insert witty headline)
Yo. I was not involved with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, but I still thank you for providing an elaborate, well-thought-out and reasonable explanation for your decision. One too many times I've taken part in an elaborate prolonged debate that finished with: "The result was delete. --~~~~". You rule. --Kizor 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Wily. I gather that you know a bit about Flickr and photographs. let me first say I know NOTHING about either.
Now, I would be most grateful if you can help with a special request. I have posted it on the Wikimedia commons Help Desk.
(it is free license , attribution requested)
and entitle it: "Massed Mounted Band, Trooping the Colour, 16 June 2007" (NB - I believe it is this year, but please check on uploading.
Your help will be so appreciated. Immediate action would be great. I want to add it in right away if possible.
You can answer to my talk page or here.
I was just looking at something:
- Image:1 Train (1967-1979).png - fair use image I removed
- Image:NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg - image on commons presumed public domain
- Personally what I'm thinking is Image:1 Train (1967-1979).png really isn't fair use. I'll bring it to the media copyrights department for questioning.. — Moe ε 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,I put up the Nizah Morris article and saw the note about adding a picture. I have a picture of Nizah Morris as well as pictures of other hate crime victims I'm slowly adding to Wikipedia. I was reluctant to put up a picture, though, because I was afraid of violating Wikipedia guidelines and thus getting the article itself deleted. I'm not sure that any of the pictures I have are public domain, etc. And in some I'm not sure of the original source.
How do I go about adding pictures without violating guidelines?
TerranceDC 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I always subst it when adding it to new user talk pages, SqueakBox 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I was somewhat concerned you didnt like the template content but I see that wasnt the case, SqueakBox 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator, u should invite to the discussion page everyone who wish to expose in an eciclopedic way the facts of a matter, that's the only neutral way to set an article and please read twice my colaboration in this specific article, if you refuse my colaboration, then u wouldn't be as democratic and neutral as you suposed to be as an administrator. One of the rules in Wikipedia is in fact to set an article based on a democratic consultation keeping these points:
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Thank You. --Raveonpraghga 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you maybe user WilyD on commons which is speaking about transparent socks ? I really do not believe in that but ....--Rjecina 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I have called few users :)) Only thing which is interesting to me why you think that users are making copy of other users opinions ? If map is false what they need to say ? Creator of this map know what he need to do so that map will be OK for wiki (show territory under occupation in different color). Only problem is that he do not want to make change. If you are wish to loose more time with our Balcan nationalistic problems you need to look map Serbia02.png. In next month or two I or somebody else will give demand for deleting on commons. Reason map is misleading because is showing Serbian Principality in blue and it is showing Austrian province Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš banat in blue. I will like you comment if this map is misleading or not. --Rjecina 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)