User talk:TreasuryTag: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:51, 5 June 2010 view sourceTreasuryTag (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 editsm →Incivility: typo← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:01, 5 June 2010 view source GiacomoReturned (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers11,926 edits →Ceoil's talk page: OK. I respect your decision to revert embarassing material and compromising material from your page. I will not post it here againNext edit →
Line 303:		Line 303:
	::::::::::A blocked user's ventings on his own talkpage, while inappropriate, may be given more leeway than comparable comments made elsewhere, so tolerating them in that context doesn't establish a precedent. In any event, you should try to model your wiki-behavior after good examples set by others, not poor ones. ] (]) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)		::::::::::A blocked user's ventings on his own talkpage, while inappropriate, may be given more leeway than comparable comments made elsewhere, so tolerating them in that context doesn't establish a precedent. In any event, you should try to model your wiki-behavior after good examples set by others, not poor ones. ] (]) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{ec}} It means don't do it I guess. This user is currently blocked, normally we allow blocked users to let off a bit of steam on their talk page when blocked, that doesn't mean we encourage it however. I personally don't see anything with you warning them for it, and don't see it as baiting, although I do think you should have just left the talk page rather than continuing with the discussion there, Ceoil's probably not currently in the mode to have a discussion with you about using the word "fuck". Best, - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 13:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)		::::::::::{{ec}} It means don't do it I guess. This user is currently blocked, normally we allow blocked users to let off a bit of steam on their talk page when blocked, that doesn't mean we encourage it however. I personally don't see anything with you warning them for it, and don't see it as baiting, although I do think you should have just left the talk page rather than continuing with the discussion there, Ceoil's probably not currently in the mode to have a discussion with you about using the word "fuck". Best, - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 13:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
			*OK. I respect your decision to revert embarassing material and compromising material from your page. I will not post it here again <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:01, 5 June 2010

TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer.

Just to fix the formatting...

Picture of the day

Amphipoea oculea Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Paltry

I'm fascinated by your use of the word "paltry". My first assumption was that this was a synonym for "minor", then I thought, "Well, maybe, perhaps not. After all, he didn't tick the 'minor edit' box ... ". Please enlighten me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it means, "measly: contemptibly small in amount." Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 11:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of no importance or priority, but continuing my fascination: "So why don't you tick the 'minor edit' box?" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean that the edits were minor. I meant that they were collectively small in amount. But as you say, it's only a minor issue, no pun intended...! Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Having paid more attention to your edits, I have quickly realised that "small" and "minor" are by NO means equivalent. My apologies. Yes, I agree that your paltry edits are NOT minor. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB note

Greetings! Is there a way in AWB to check to make sure you aren't inadvertently changing medieval French rather than English? For example, here you changed "jugement" to "judgement" -- it's not a typo because it's not English. Just curious because I don't know how often this happens project-wide with semi-automated tools. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, there is a way – I'm supposed to carefully check that sort of thing before hitting the 'save' button; my fault entirely! (Although, if you include a {{sic}} tag anywhere in the page, AWB will add an extra warning to the editor that they need to watch out for unusually-spelt words.) Hope this helps? Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Soins, soins :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say that my French, medieval or otherwise, is of such a poor standard that I had to resort to Google Translate to make head or tale of that :P ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you mark you AWB changes as minor? Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

May one ask why? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Because they are minor: some typos, some format fixes, etc. No substantial content changes. It would also help with my watchlist maintenance. Renata (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This wasn't really about my problem, but it did come up in a discussion that I started when people supposedly claimed my unreliable reference was used. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the oil spill to get involved in any detailed discussion; I would merely say that, from what you said at the Village Pump the other day, you seem to have a more than adequate grasp of the policy on reliable sources, and there are several experienced editors involved on the discussion page. I'm sure you'll reach a good conclusion.

Feel free to ask me for any (preferably broader!) help or advice at any time! Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the oil spill. If USA Today "recycles at least some of its URLs", as was stated in that discussion, it becomes a general guideline that all editors should watch out for, since they might inadvertently use a link that turns out to refer to a whole different article, sort of like what happened to me on my oil spill contribution.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made between the link and the article. If a major British newspaper were to go bankrupt and deactivate its website, every page cited to online articles would still be valid (the information would still have been published), the only problem is that the links would be defective.

Plenty of pages are cited to news reports without a web-link, particularly historical news reports of course. It may well be that, if one particular website is known for recycling links, it is better to refer to specific articles rather than specific URLs. Does that help? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what happened in my case is the article may never have appeared in a paper the way I saw it when I used it as a source. Unless someone has the old version saved somewhere and we can be sure it is reliable because it is there, then I suppose what you're saying might work.

All of this should really be in that policy discussion we started earlier.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

< Well, I'd have thought that saying something like the following would be acceptable: USA Today, 30th May 2010, "Huge gold robbery from Ohio dairy," online. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The question is whether the information even exists anywhere. I haven't yet seen any evidence fishermen got sick, but some people working in the area did, and that's in the article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Tagging

You have tagged several articles (some examples, but there are others: Ergin, Erdinç) with the {{orphan}} template that do not qualify as orphans. Please check out the orphan criteria (specifically the exclusion for disambiguation and name pages) and only apply the tag to articles that are truly orphans. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hehe - sorry, couldn't resist. But now that I'm here, I may steal your editnotice format for ani - it may have a reasonable chance of getting people to give the required notifications! :D Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to steal anything you like :) But isn't there already a "please notify everyone" banner? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so many people don't see (or ignore) it and yours is so much more bold and obvious and bold. —DoRD (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Just a note for the future, but the template is supposed to go at the bottom of articles, just like {{Featured article}}. This is because most people don't know what the template does, and it certainly is not easy to determine what it does if you don't already know since it changes an image in the corner of the page rather than inline with the text, so a lot of users remove the template. Gary King (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it at the bottom in future! Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 08:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your efforts! :) Speaking as someone willing to make little edits to hundreds of articles at a clip, but I wonder if it's possible to get a bot to do all that work? Although I completely understand if you want to do it personally, because I do the same thing. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously possible for a bot to do it, but I'm not competent to write one, and the bot-request went unanswered for a good while, so I made a start myself. Do feel free to take some of the weight off my shoulders, though ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - I'll at least hit the ones from the WikiProjects I frequent... that should cover, what 1% of them? :) BOZ (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal images

You seem to have not read all the IFD's, it fails criteria 2 because the magazine may lose money because they are the exclusive publisher of those images. If you read the IFD's, I have gone in to further detail about this.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you were talking about people buying the game which has nothing to do with my argument. There was no consensus, as all the Keep arguments completely missed the point.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of randomly bad unrelated arguments is a consensus? Sounds closer to a vote to me.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, and I just did. So there.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I didn't realise it was a comment. It looked like part of the official text. It was unsigned. I resent your bossy edit summary. Tony (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your reversion of what I now see is Risker's comment, which looked like official text, at the CU/OS announcement section. Hmm, I over-reacted, anyway. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were logged out at the time. Hmm—I always find that it's best to avoid making "uncontroversial" changes to any text written by another person, because unless there's something actually doing any harm, it's generally un-necessary and often inflammatory. Put it down to a misunderstanding :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint

I looked at WP:AN3#User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: ). Edit wars on discussion pages (such as an RfB) are not always treated the same as article edit wars. Oftentimes the closing admin will try to find some diplomatic solution. A block does not appear to be imminently required since the reverting has stopped. Since you're the one who opened this complaint, you're in the best position to suggest it be closed with no further action (should you be feeling magnanimous). Any long-term issues with this editor belong to Arbcom, and AN3 is not a good place to work on that. The continued dialog at AN3 offers you a chance to set the better example. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal issues with Giano, and will not pursue this further, but I cannot, in good faith, withdraw a 3RR complaint against an editor, even if it's him, who broke the 3RR. I'm sorry. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware that just about any block of Giano, no matter how justified, leads to a stupendous dramafest and generally ends up at ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because cuch blocks are unjustified (which is why they are overturned) and the result of such rubbish as this latest one, where an Admin willfully decided to create a completely false and misleading impresion and then when asked, refused to withdraw his comment. Even when other Admins pointed out to him his errors. As usual I have to correct matters myself. I will not tolerate this constant defamation of my character by Admins. Such misleading impressions when deliberatly propogated will always be strenuously refuted. So I suggest Stifle, that you and TreasuryTag take your conscientious and well meaning concerns to those who create these problems and leave me alone. Giacomo 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because cuch blocks are unjustified. Interesting idea. If blocks for 3RR violations are unjustified, then I wonder why I have any stains on my record at all? ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not the remotest interest in your record. I always consider a pre-occupation with the activites of others to be indicative of too little of value and interest in one's own life. I can never comprehend why so many, such as yourself and Stifle, are so fascinated by mine. Giacomo 11:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I always consider a pre-occupation with the activites of others to be indicative of too little of value and interest in one's own life. Perhaps a collaborative environment such as Misplaced Pages is not the best place for you, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, I think I have done quite well here. In fact, quite a lot without needing to acquire titles and tools to bolster my self esteem and status. I do not even know your fields of interest, nor am I interested. To be brutally honest, in mainspace I have ever even come acrosss you. Were it not for your increasingly concerning pre-occupation with me, I doubt I would have ever heard of you, Stifle, Wehwalt and so many others of your type. You all appear to spend ages pouring over diffs of me in the hope of finding something that contravenes your seemingly narrow sense of decorum and delicate sensibilities, while all the time ignoring the really serious mendacious goings on arownd the project. Such is the hatred for me, that when I am called a "cock sucker" Wehwalt, who you clearly so admire, declares it not to be uncivil. You see because of such incidents my interest and respect for such as him and those in agrement with him plummet to new and unfathomable depths. After just that one incident, there should have beencries for his head, and it should have been taken, he proved that his judgement was not to be trusted, yet nothing happens. Yet amnd this is a huge yet, the peanut gallery dare to keep criticising and carping about me for reverting a delliberate misleadling falsehood. Now, I find that very strange and indicative of the people I am dealing with here. My behaviour will change when I no longer have to contend with such poor behaviour from others - others who have set themselves up as superior Admins. I make no claims for my own superiority because I am quite aware and very happy with whom I am. Can you just immagine what the reaction would have been if I had said to Wehwalt (or anyone else) yesterday "You are a cocksucker" can you imagine it? No, I don't think you can - you and this like you don't want to see further than that which you want to see. Now, this is me asking officially (I shall memo this diff) will you kindly leave me alone. Giacomo 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh, I think I have done quite well here. In fact, quite a lot without needing to acquire titles and tools to bolster my self esteem and status. I do not even know your fields of interest, nor am I interested. To be brutally honest, in mainspace I have ever even come acrosss you. Were it not for your increasingly concerning pre-occupation with me, I doubt I would have ever heard of you, Stifle, Wehwalt and so many others of your type. You all appear to spend ages pouring over diffs of me in the hope of finding something that contravenes your seemingly narrow sense of decorum and delicate sensibilities, while all the time ignoring the really serious mendacious goings on arownd the project. Such is the hatred for me, that when I am called a "cock sucker" Wehwalt, who you clearly so admire, declares it not to be uncivil. You see because of such incidents my interest and respect for such as him and those in agrement with him plummet to new and unfathomable depths. After just that one incident, there should have beencries for his head, and it should have been taken, he proved that his judgement was not to be trusted, yet nothing happens. Yet amnd this is a huge yet, the peanut gallery dare to keep criticising and carping about me for reverting a delliberate misleadling falsehood. Now, I find that very strange and indicative of the people I am dealing with here. My behaviour will change when I no longer have to contend with such poor behaviour from others - others who have set themselves up as superior Admins. I make no claims for my own superiority because I am quite aware and very happy with whom I am. Can you just immagine what the reaction would have been if I had said to Wehwalt (or anyone else) yesterday "You are a cocksucker" can you imagine it? No, I don't think you can - you and this like you don't want to see further than that which you want to see. Now, this is me asking officially (I shall memo this diff) will you kindly leave me alone. Giacomo 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a pity "Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read" the attention span of a gnat? Not to mention uncivil, you don't even understand the emaning of the word. Giacomo 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, I am not here to annoy you, although my very existence probably does that anyway. I was merely providing information to TreasuryTag in a personal message. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

In view of the ongoing situation, please refrain from any further unnecessary interaction with this user, including further nominations for deletion of his articles, files, or pages. Under the circumstances, it would clearly be best for any remaining issues to be addressed by other editors who have not played a role in the ongoing dispute. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to what I hope is a request (!) by email. Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Dr. K. has noted on Giano's talk that he didn't appreciate this comment and I can see why. Prodego has said that kind of comment may be blockworthy. Please take care to avoid incivility, however frustrating an AfD becomes. Fences&Windows 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've been following the discussion with interest, and arguably been subject to more attacks than were warranted by my simple comment. But thanks for letting me know, and I take the point! ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 May 2010

Photography: Making money with free photos

News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dreyer Farms AFD

What on earth? I thought we had an agreement? I don't think this was made clear to you earlier: your interaction with this editor is disruptive. I am happy to prevent disruption with blocks if it comes to it, though I'd very much rather not. AGK 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see that as interaction, I saw that as giving a reasoned opinion in a (seemingly) non-controversial AfD. I don't see how it was disruptive and think it highly unlikely that any block for it would stick, to be blunt! ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 06:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also identified a disruptive !voter even though they were on the same side as myself, and as it turned out, Richard himself agreed with the deletion of the article (or at least asked for it to be deleted). Please highlight where the disruption from the edit you refer to ocurred. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and before you even bother saying that I'm automatically !voting "delete" on every article created by Richard, I would advise you to check that statement carefully. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stay away from anything having to do with RAN for now. This would also mean commenting in XfDs as to content he has uploaded or created. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will undertake to do so since you have politely asked. But I stress that the edit AGK linked above was in no way disruptive, and I resent his accusatory tone of voice. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit, taken alone, wasn't at all disruptive. The wider kerfluffle, among many editors now, has become very disruptive. By recusing altogether, you're helping mightily with the first step towards settling things down. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The wider kerfuffle, which was only started by Giano yesterday, has indeed become disruptive. I obviously didn't want him to start the ANI thread complaining about my behaviour; and now I am to be restricted because of what he did? I'll play along, but this doesn't seem to me to be fair. Nor the fact that he made about eight vile personal attacks yesterday and was not held to account for it. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to "restrict" yourself by NYB and me before Giano ever got tangled up in this. Thanks for doing so now. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My point precisely. I was asked. And suddenly AGK is tossing around the threat of a block for this and not for vile personal attacks such as those Giano was making yesterday. He is clearly irresponsible at best. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes on en.WP, one must stand back and let things bounce about some on their own as they dwindle and settle. Jumping in only makes the mess last longer. Giano is Giano, let it be. Outside of an RfC, I see no further need for you to be making comments about other editors who have gotten caught up in this, please don't, since this will only help you and everyone else. Thanks again for recusing from RAN. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Giano is Giano, let it be." Will people let TreasuryTag be TreasuryTag, though? No, of course not. I wonder why? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I may say so, Gwen, this is completely out of line. Since when could an admin grant another editor immunity from having their content nominated for deletion by neutral users? Especially since Richard is someone whose content most needs scrutinising, unilaterally exempting him from the same standards which apply to everybody else on Misplaced Pages seems arbitrary and just looks like appeasement. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 08:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a chill pill, nobody has given RAN immunity from anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really? Could you perhaps explain how one should be interpreting this sentence of yours, then: Please stop templating this editor Likewise as to any further pages he has created in userspace: It's ok to talk about it, but give him time to handle it As to articles, I think it's ok to let the AfD discussion run but please don't reopen any which have been closed, even as procedural, for now. I interpret it as meaning that none of his content is to be nominated for deletion until "things have settled down" – an arbitrary concept, and if Giano stays involved, things will never settle down! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This disruption has begun to harm the project, asking editors to take a break from this is not arbitrary, it's a way to stop the harm and take a first step towards bringing any articles, uploads or other pages which may somehow be lacking into the bounds of policy in a straightforward and fair way without wasting any more volunteer time. Please don't make me comment more on this, you may not like what I have to say and I think you'll find, recusing as you've agreed to do will only help you and any policy driven, good faith content goals you have. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Asking editors to let a particular user create whatever content they want until things "settle down" seems extremely arbitrary to me. If you do not wish to comment further, nobody will "make" you, just as nobody has made you up until this point. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 09:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If RAN goes off on a spree, wantonly creating policy breaching content, no matter how much, it'll be handled soon enough. In the meantime, the website won't crash. The wider disruption is the first worry. Once that settles, the next worries can be dealt with, step by step, in the time needed to do so fairly and within policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder how I am irresponsible by indicating that I am happy to block for disruption? It is critical that you recuse from interaction with Richard. Please don't push the boundaries on this one; I felt that we were making progress after the ANI thread yesterday, and to see things deteriorate so early is quite disappointing. AGK 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It is irresponsible that you would block me for disruption because I made a non-disruptive edit. It is irresponsible that you refrain from blocking other editors for vile personal attacks. Clear? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, TT. You following Richard to an AFD is disruptive. So the first point is wrong. As for the secon, I don't know what you are referring to; if you link me, I can look into it. But in any case the conduct of others does not give you a license to misbehave. AGK 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not "follow Richard to an AfD" – he didn't even comment on the page, so that is a ludicrous assertion. And making a non-controversial, reasoned argument for deletion, while chastising another editor with the same view, is also not disruptive.

As for the second point, if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that I never suggested others' misdemeanours gave me a license to be naughty. I said that your turning a blind eye to Giano's personal attacks makes you irresponsible, and I stand by that claim. You asked for examples: you'll say it's too late now, but here is one, typical of six or seven from last night. However, there's time to put it right, and I would be grateful if you would object on my behalf to his reference to me, of just a few minutes ago, as odious ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there appear to be differing standards being applied. Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is explicitly not harassment. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did, Treasury Tag! The article was created by Richard, as you know fine well. This is yet another of his contributions that you are trying to have deleted. Simply unacceptable. On another note, I would fully concur that Giano's comment was inappropriate, and I have asked him to remove it. AGK 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Re this – thanks. I'm glad you chose to do the right thing; I know that your request to him won't be fulfilled but that's not your fault.
On the other matter, however, I maintain that my !voting in that AfD was not disruptive, in that no actual disruption flowed from it, and I do not forsee my opinion changing. If you wish to continue spouting about it and insisting that it was, then that is your privilege (albeit a privilege limited by my right to delete material from this page) and you may go on doing so until you are blue in the knuckles. But it would be fairly pointless, not least given my voluntary agreement to self-censor in future in cases where content created by Richard is up for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If my request is not honoured then I'll block him. Personal attacks aren't tolerated on here, irrespective of how noble is the cause for which they are made. I note with interest your note at the top of the page that "impersonal, standard templates" are unwelcome here. Where precisely does categorising my attempts to make the project a little less unpleasant as WP:LEGS-worthy fit in with that ethos? Would you suggest that the problem is maybe not with me being persistent but with your continued refusal to refrain from doing silly, disruptive things like your Dreyer Farms AFD comment?
When you started pursuing RAN's enwiki contributions as well as his Commons uploads (to say nothing of asking on another user's talk page how to "deal" with him), you exceeded the parameters of neutral scrutiny of your fellow editors. Your privilege to ignore this fact is moderated by a number of factors, the foremost of which is our site's policy against disruptive editing and my ability to block. You can refrain from interaction with RAN voluntarily, or be blocked; self-censor or be censored. The ball's in your court. AGK 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The AfD comment was not disruptive because no disruption ocurred as a result of it. However, I do welcome your pledge to block Giano if he fails to strike out his attack against me. I note with interest that he seems to have edited since your request, but has not struck it? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Given this can I assume that you will be taking further action? Regards, ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Relating to this edit, the implication that another user is a troll is not civil and should not be made. Please refrain from doing so in future. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for suggesting such a thing, but is it at all possible that you have warned me for precisely the same edit I was warned over just a few threads up? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I do apologize; I had missed it although I tried to check elsewhere. Please feel free to remove or ignore this message. Or both. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please feel free to ignore this civility warning" – how refreshing to hear that from an admin ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know I removed the semi-protection on your talk page which has been in place since November. In general we don't protect talk pages for an extended period of time, as unregistered or new users may wish to post messages. Hope you don't mind. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. You OK? Please will you drop me an email? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI stuff

Just wanted to let ya know, I'm neither a fan or opponent of Giacomo's. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm—OK... ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 15:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a good move TT. Giacomo 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You used the non-existent <archive> tag which has no effect... ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Something you might want to keep in mind, TT: It's possible for an action to be both permitted and justifiable, and yet still be a bad idea. Your continuing engagement is not helping matters. Shimeru (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, my continued engagement in what? This dispute's boundaries are expanding rapidly. It started with Richard's images and pages – I've voluntarily recused myself from that. Then it extended into Giano's false claims of harassment – I'm ignoring those. Then it turned into Giano's personal attack against me – I've not commented on that since the block. Then it extended into Giano's general attitude – is this now also off-limits? Where does it end? I'm not prepared to stop editing completely just because the administrators are unable to get a grip on the situation. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to. Just that, before you hit "Save Page," you pause and think for a moment about whether the change you're making is likely to help wind things down, or whether it might instead ratchet things up. Especially when your change is a reversion of a user who's been involving himself in a dispute with you. Shimeru (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If your question is essentially, "Was reverting the attempted closure, by Giano, of criticism of Giano's actions likely to help?" then I would unashamedly answer in the affirmative. If you disagree, I'd welcome your views, however :) ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have been better to let someone uninvolved make that determination, yes. Shimeru (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Though that's a separate issue. The action of reverting that change was either helpful or unhelpful, irrespective of who did it. Whether it would have been more appropriate to wait for someone else to make precisely the same decision a few seconds later, I personally don't see the benefit, but there we go... Do you think that the attempted archiving itself was appropriate? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I think it might have been better if he'd let someone uninvolved make that determination. Which did happen, afterward. Shimeru (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My point precisely: he shouldn't have done it. So I undid it. (The fact that it was non-functional <archive> tags involved only emphasise the point, anyway...) ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See above re: permitted and justifiable. Shimeru (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, when i go to the bathroom, I believe I may be wiping incorrectly, can you please do it for me? Some things are better left alone, you are looking a bit insane, just let this die down. Holy jeebus.--Milowent (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that was rather vulgar... ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit odious. But I hope you get the point.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Nice one. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lalaurie scrn.jpg - Can you look at this image?

Hey TreasuryTag, can I convince you to use your mighty image scrutiny powers for good instead of evil by having a look at File:Lalaurie scrn.jpg? It appears to have an invalid fair use rationale. I'm not really across the procedure for getting an image nominated for deletion so I thought I might pass it to the person I've most recently encountered who seems confident in this area, being you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting—if this guy died in 1842, as the article says, the painting must be in the public domain. But the article says "1997" – which is presumably a mistake. If I were you, I'd tag it as PD. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. There seems to be a claim that the artist was in fact commissioned to paint a portrait in 1997, based on other images of her that might have been available. That painting is most likely still in copyright, unless it can be proven to be a "slavish reproduction" of a public-domain portrait -- which requires the artist to have striven to copy a single source as accurately as possible, without any artistic stylistic flourishes of his own. Which is not what he's claiming. Shimeru (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Newbie wanting help with image tagging

Could you possibly offer some assistance to User talk:Starseeker9? I was happy to help with editing issues, but his/her image questions are well out of my expertise range! Thanks --Dweller (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll drop him a line and refer him to you when he needs help. --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

GA bot tags

See you are behind the GA Bot tagging, I think? I saw the template added to several horse articles, but some of our older GAs don't yet have it: Equine nutrition, Horses in the Middle Ages and Horses in warfare. Not sure what makes the little tag go in, but can you see if they are able to be tagged? Thanks! Montanabw 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I was just working through a list of GAs, using AutoWikiBrowser. But it's extremely time-consuming, and I've been a bit busy in real life for the last couple of days. I do encourage others to do a little tagging too :) ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if there was a protocol for who adds those tags, wanted to be cautious. But if anyone can do, then I'll do it, and thanks. Montanabw 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AN thread

Don't edit war over it, you're on the edge of 3rr now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR has an exception for reverting blatant vandalism, which deleting a good-faith ANI thread is (especially if it's a proposal for a community ban of yourself!) ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't be see as v. It may be disruption but there is clearly no consensus for the thread to be kept. It's an edit war. Don't revert it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"No consensus for the thread to be kept" – since when did there have to be consensus for a proposal to be open for more than five minutes?! ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war over whether the thread itself is disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather fond that pic

At least looking through all those archive pics wasn't a complete waste of time, maybe? But apart from the info that it was taken in New York I know nothing more about it. I assume it was an advertising gimmick or similar. Misarxist (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil's talk page

He's blocked. Please stop baiting him, take a break. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When WP:CIV and WP:NPA are amended to exempt blocked editors from their remit, let me know. Until then, swearing, vulgarity and calling individuals "idiots" are all prohibited actions. Issuing the appropriate warning is no more baiting than it is ever baiting to issue a warning. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post on his page again. I know there is an irony to this request, given the reason that Ceoil is himself blocked right now, but I make it anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

May I take this request to mean that the language he is using is acceptable? ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then may I take it that, since he has used language which you identify as unacceptable, including a personal attack, his block is going to be extended? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If your ruling is that the language he used is not a blockable offence, I shall consider myself free to use it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that refers to, given that I didn't ask a question. I simply made a statement. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A blocked user's ventings on his own talkpage, while inappropriate, may be given more leeway than comparable comments made elsewhere, so tolerating them in that context doesn't establish a precedent. In any event, you should try to model your wiki-behavior after good examples set by others, not poor ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It means don't do it I guess. This user is currently blocked, normally we allow blocked users to let off a bit of steam on their talk page when blocked, that doesn't mean we encourage it however. I personally don't see anything with you warning them for it, and don't see it as baiting, although I do think you should have just left the talk page rather than continuing with the discussion there, Ceoil's probably not currently in the mode to have a discussion with you about using the word "fuck". Best, - Kingpin (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I respect your decision to revert embarassing material and compromising material from your page. I will not post it here again Giacomo 20:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)