| Revision as of 01:18, 27 December 2007 editRG2 (talk | contribs)13,304 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:36, 31 December 2007 edit undoFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm →Your edit (Warning: WP:POINT): tweakNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :*] and ] – I take it from your wording that you want those images displayed in various articles, but you removed them yourself after others disagreed with their addition? | :*] and ] – I take it from your wording that you want those images displayed in various articles, but you removed them yourself after others disagreed with their addition? | ||
| :-- ]<sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | :-- ]<sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Your edit (Warning: ]) == | |||
| The second part of edit, coming as it did in the middle of a heated discussion about a block, was unhelpful and a breach of the injunction "]". | |||
| You knew it was unlikely to help sort the matter out in any meaningful way, and also that the issue was not "trolls" but a breach of an arbcom ruling, and yet posted it regardless. | |||
| The rules on manner of speech exist to help communication. There is nothing that canot be achieved with incivility that cannot equally be achieved civilly. The latter is what is being asked. As you can see from the user's own page, it is perfectly possible to deal firmly with a breach of norms (including if relevant any "trolling", "fringe pushing" or "disruption") both civilly and effectively. It also makes it a lot easier. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:36, 31 December 2007
Nancy Reagan protection
Maybe you can help me. There is rampant vandalism, POV edits, and non-MOS edits being made to Nancy Reagan and my request for protection was declined. The vandalism has only worsened. I revert this anon one more time it will be 3RR. Please help out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on it, but FAs currently on the Main Page are rarely protected. Admittedly, I'm not sure how wise this policy is. -- RG 10:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Lots of photos
You have nominated for deletion several photos and images. I will not oppose you deleting obvious copyright violations (but not images where you speculate they are violations - let me investigate first). Other images were removed from articles and are thus orphans, until at least I pursuade others to reinsert them back in (it would have been easier if you didn't nominate so many at one time -especially over the Xmas break!) As for the bus in the reservoir? I think I uploaded that by mistake! Kransky (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's a grace period after a deletion nomination, and I can always undelete an image myself if a mistake was made. But anyway, to summarize, I guess the ones that aren't obvious copyright violations (save for the bus in the reservoir) are:
- Image:North Korean embassy in Ulan Bator.jpg and Image:Indian HC in Canberra.jpg – We'll need to verify the sources for these images if they are to be kept. Rarely are Flickr images licensed under the GFDL, anyway, so that's another sign something's fishy.
- Image:PittRail.PNG – You replaced this with what seems to be a more complete map, Image:PittRail2.PNG, here. Is the original image worth keeping? If it's potentially useful, but not needed for Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider uploading it to the Commons.
- Image:Vietnamese diplomatic missions map.PNG and Image:Australian diplomatic missions map.PNG – I take it from your wording that you want those images displayed in various articles, but you removed them yourself after others disagreed with their addition?
- -- RG 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit (Warning: WP:POINT)
The second part of this edit, coming as it did in the middle of a heated discussion about a block, was unhelpful and a breach of the injunction "do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point".
You knew it was unlikely to help sort the matter out in any meaningful way, and also that the issue was not "trolls" but a breach of an arbcom ruling, and yet posted it regardless.
The rules on manner of speech exist to help communication. There is nothing that canot be achieved with incivility that cannot equally be achieved civilly. The latter is what is being asked. As you can see from the user's own page, it is perfectly possible to deal firmly with a breach of norms (including if relevant any "trolling", "fringe pushing" or "disruption") both civilly and effectively. It also makes it a lot easier. FT2 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)