Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 21 January 2008

• −6111 days left
• My archives can be found here.
• If you start a thread here, I will reply here. If I started a thread on your talkpage, I'll follow your "rules".

Your comments on the Angel David RfC

First off, I apologise for saying that your opinion on the case made you unfit to be an administrator. I realise it was uncalled-for, and I'm certainly not going to advocate your desysopping or anything of that nature. As Friday correctly pointed out, honest disagreements between reasonable people are possible, and we shouldn't make this personal.

With regards to myself, though, I was quite hurt by your suggestion that I am guilty of "wikilawyering" (a term I detest). It happens that I am a law student in RL, and that probably influences my general methods of thinking; I like policies to be clear, precise and consistently applied, and I distrust unfettered admin discretion, for the simple reason that ordinary users need to know where they stand. Accordingly I oppose blocks that are not backed up by established policy and practice. This is my opinion, but you are entitled to disagree.

I also don't believe that I refuse to exercise "common sense". Users can disagree in good faith about what constitutes a "common sense" approach to a problem, but in cases like this I don't believe there is one. I personally believe that, as contributors are our most important resource, we should exhaust every possible approach before even considering blocking any good-faith user. Yes, obviously, we should block people for vandalising, or for disrupting discussions or processes and preventing others from working on the encyclopedia. But where someone is making some helpful edits, coupled with a large number of less useful edits, we shouldn't be prepared to block them unless they are actually causing a serious problem. I personally believe this to be common sense.

I have nothing against you personally, and I don't want a conflict to develop out of this. I apologise for personalising the issue, and I hope we can discuss things rationally. Walton 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this note? (Apologies if you just haven't had time to reply yet.) Walton 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I did. Lucky it didn't get archived, everything older than 48 h goes here because sometimes get complete floods (40 in 3 days once). I see why conflict between us may develop, as I'm all for admins having more power(s), and that includes blocking through WP:IAR, as I feel that the trolls are controlling the admins. I personally believe that there have been very many attempts to help David, yet they haven't worked, so I think it's time to resort to a block. I apologize for some of my statements, I got overangered/carried away. Maxim_(talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are entitled to disagree with me in good faith. But I don't see that "the trolls are controlling the admins". Those users who are just here to disrupt the encyclopedia typically get blocked very quickly; the difficulty is always with those people who make constructive contributions, but mix them with incivility and POV editing, and those are the people we should not be quick to block (and if we absolutely have to, it should be decided through consensus rather than a single admin's judgment). I don't think Angel David is even really one of those; he's very civil and mild-mannered and clearly a nice person, he's just very young and doesn't really understand how Misplaced Pages works. But I think you're right to some extent, in that there have been a lot of attempts to guide him along the right path and they haven't worked. Perhaps he should be advised to take a wikibreak for a while; however, I still think a block would be overkill. As much as we say that blocks are preventative and not punitive, they are usually seen as a punishment by the people on whom they're imposed. Walton 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logos of ACCESS (TV channel)

If i were to be able to place the appropriate copyright and fair-use image tags on the images that were deleted from the ACCESS (TV channel) article, would you be willing to undelete them? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've delete the logo in question. --Maxim_(talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, i'm asking if you could restore them. I'd be willing to place proper source and copyright status information on the images. I just think they would be additive to the article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I meant I restored Image:Access Television.png for you to fix. Maxim_(talk) 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. I already have added in a fair use rationale for its use in that article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, i take it the older 1970s and 1980s logos are not allowed on wikipedia? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I juat wanted to thank you. I was blocked from editing this site a few months ago and you gave me a second chance. Since then, all i have done is look for ways to help Wikpedia cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Equanimity cover FNL.jpg

I would like to contest the deletion of this file, which is the cover of my CD, which I own the copyright to. Additional use of this image can be found at www.diemjones.com. In accordance to your template:

Fair use in Equanimity cover FNL.jpg ===

   Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies, because:
   # It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
   # The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
   # It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
   # It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value

Many thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.

la luz,

diem jones aka sufiwarrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufiwarrior (talk • contribs) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Maxim_(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hey there...

I believe you deleted two images; one called "Chomper.jpg", the other "Ruby.jpg". I noticed that the reason was a disputed fair use rationale. I remember those images clearly. Do you think you could restore them for about twenty minutes? I believe I could fix their problems. If you decide to do this, please notify me on my talkpage that they've been temporarily restored. Thank you. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I'd rather they be restored and then you wait until I notify you that I got your message, as I might not be on the computer at the time you reply. Thanks for understanding. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball delete

Greets, Maxim. When you threw snowballs at the 2008-09 Team season pages, you forgot to throw one at the 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season page. You got the rest of them, though. -Pparazorback (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it's been "hit". :-p Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion already?

Hi Maxim. As you can see from User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries, I've just been making a start at cleaning up some images. But now I see lots of the images I had been looking through on a preview screen have now been deleted. I thought we'd agreed here to give me (and others) this weekend to look through the categories? You said "I'm kinda glad we can sort of agree on that you can't save eveything. :-( As I understand, I should start deleting around 00:00 20 January?" - maybe there was a misunderstanding here, but I meant 23:59 UTC Sunday 20 January, which is 30 hours from now. What's going on? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI post. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maxim. I see you are back online. I'm not going to be around again until later in the day, but do you think you could possibly find the time to respond here and at the ANI thread? Just something to indicate that you are aware of the threads and whether or not you will hold off on image deletions (I see you are dealing with articles at the moment) until after midnight, Sunday (the time now in big, bold text at the top of the category and subcategories)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And another ANI thread. Don't know where that IP came from. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for nominating Cape Perpetua for DYK spot--always nice to have people read/appreciate work.--Orygun (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hi Maxim. I'm going to make one last attempt to get in touch with you. The list I've eventually come up with can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. As you can see, some are deleted already, some aren't. Some have already been fixed by others, some haven't. It will be inconvenient for me to undelete (and sometimes difficult to find the articles the images were used in). I don't mind doing this, but I'm leaving this message here in the hope that you will see it and feel able to reply to me. Thanks. I'll be offline in about an hour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)