Misplaced Pages

User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/9: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Aaron Brenneman Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:04, 21 August 2006 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →Early closes (from Administrator's Noticeboard): gropuing by date, moving comments in← Previous edit Revision as of 07:05, 21 August 2006 edit undoAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →Blatant speedy closes: RedactedNext edit →
Line 173: Line 173:


===Blatant speedy closes=== ===Blatant speedy closes===
⚫ Redacted from in edit. All information ''should'' be folded into section above. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the evidence above, there were at least two other blatant ones that I missed as well. But these were the ones I specifically addressed him with. --] <small>]</small> 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Ok, can we get these added to the list above please, and any notes on them in the format below. This will help keep the discussion threaded in a way that's easy to follow. Once all these are added to the above, this section can be removed. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:# closed within 1 day with summary "closed early" and explanation "no need to drag this on." Interestingly, not only did it not meet speedy keep guidelines, but you yourself, Aaron, had expressed issue with the sourcing. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
I'm going to let BDjeff add them in, and for reference. The Boston, Ontario one was discussed by me and the admin, and is now closed for the second thrid time by another closer. ] 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why we're adding them in, as these are the major problem ones. The relisting was then by someone who appears to be unaware of the situation. I'lldeal with that at the DRV. --] <small>]</small> 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::We're adding them in because you feel I'm doing something wrong. The recent close by CharWeb was done right in my eyes, and I thanked her for it. You requested that it be reopened for delete discussion and didnt bother to vote. Time waster. ] 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, I'm trying very hard to be civil and I'd appreciate the same from you. I've listed the problems, I don't understand the need to mix them in. As for the reopening, I didn't get a link, and had to hunt around in Samir's contributions right now to actually find them (I don't typically view the daily logs until the following morning). Given that AfDs should last 5 days, I shouldn't have to worry about seeing this one close that quickly, especially given the DRV. Meanwhile, the second close was done wrong, and perhaps done even worse than the original one that I protested. This is why I'm getting frustrated. --] <small>]</small> 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Ok, steady on fellows. Part of deciding what is a problem is determining the baseline. I've listed a few recent ones in the format I think will help us see the ''whole'' picture, and if the problem ones go in in the same format, with notes underneath, it will help keep everything in context. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Also, if we get everything we agree on as factua qued up ''before'' we talk about what it means it's easier. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Minor clarification. Boston, Ontario was closed 3 times. First by Samir, second by me, and third by CharWeb. BDjeff, you said that the second close was done wrong, and I just need clarification as to which close. Mine ( closed as uneeded reopen) , or CharWeb's which was subject to a second close due to the relist? Either way its a keeper. ] 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::All three were incorrect, to be specific. Samir's was closed out of process, which is why he gladly reopened it. Yours was out of process, as it not only reversed the reopening, but closed it early without cause. The third was closed incorrectly as it was reopened as a fresh AfD following the listing at DRV, and was never up long enough to get the hearing it was supposed to get, and especially never given the opportunity for those with problems at the original AfD. So my original "second" was Char's, but upon clarification, the AfD has yet to be closed properly. --] <small>]</small> 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Ok, if you all aren't going to listen to my input, we're all wasting our time. If we keep on like this we're going to duplicate the exact communication problems that have dogged you to up until now. Does anyone understand why I'd prefer if we
::::::# First listed the XfD discussions all in one spot, and ''THEN'''
::::::# Confined any debate to close to that spot?
:::::: Because right now I don't feel like my input is adding anything to this, or that we're moving towards resiolution.
::::::]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Okay. The ones at fault I listed above. The ones above my list appear to be a complete/nearly complete list of all the closes SM has done over the last few days. My issue - and the only ones I've protested - are in this section we're editing in right now. These are the faulty 9. --] <small>]</small> 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I moved the diffs to the proper location, and starting linking them in the preferred foramt. ] 04:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Ok, finished. Now we can go over these I suppose. ] 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Ok, now that that breathless couple of minutes is complete, can I ask that we simply let this lie for a couple of hours? I'm working on something else right this second, but I'll come back to this, ''brutally refactor'', add any comments that I've got to date, and ask some more question. You've both got plenty to do without thinking about this for a few hundred minutes? - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 04:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. How should we go over these AfD's? ] 05:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :I'll let you know when I'm ready for round two. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 06:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::Ok. Yet I suggest we create another page or allow me to use one of my sandboxes if we are to go over all of my closes. It could get rather large given the number of closes, if each are to be discussed. ] 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


==Poll threatens to violate "use common names"== ==Poll threatens to violate "use common names"==

Revision as of 07:05, 21 August 2006

 Insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever.
  • The insult of the day is...
User:Jtdirl\ 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Poor Aaron wants desparately to rhyme,
'caus his name is not a dozen a dime.
But all attempts to construct
end up totally fucked
As the poet just runs out of time.
  • Talk page archives...

Scratch• AfD/Old • DRv • NfCR • RfPE
Currently working on (sometimes slowly!) add an item
Article

Personal

  • Einstein's Dreams per Mindspillage.

Longer term

  • WP:FICT - check wording on "minor characters" since it appears to be used in manner contrary to spirit. • Read about triumvirate

Maintainance

Clean up aisle five

Your only warning

Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? - brenneman 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me expand on that: I not only consider your use of the word "trolling" in that context to be terribly incivil, I find the heading to this section to be preposterous, vergin on slapstick. - brenneman 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Slapstick? No, it is only this week's episode of the 'Tony and Aaron Show'. --Doc 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've only asked him to stop. Let's hope he gets the message. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop what? And if you're going to "only ask" things in such a rude manner, please do save yourself the time. - brenneman
Stop what, exactly? I feel that this warning is unjustified. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Removal. Tony and Sam were arguing over statements on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. Aaron edited Sam's words, trying to calm the situation with a bit of humor. Sam appreciated the humor, but preferred to keep his own words. Tony was not amused at all. Or, I suppose he could be taking dry humor to a new height ... but I suspect he is serious.AnonEMouse 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen those edits. They were fairly justifiable in the situation. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If he told the guy about it, how can it possible be seen as disruptive? And leaving two-word trolling warnings that vague is unproductive. I swear, it seems like some people would rather just shut people up than work towards productivity. Karwynn (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images, your opinion?

I recall you being at least some what interested in fair use violations and as such I would like your opinion on the images on New anti-Semitism. Going down the article we have...

  • Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg Photograph of a placard at an antiwar rally, under a creative commons license. However, it is obviously a commons:Derivative work, zombietime does not claim to be the artist, ergo no permission from the original author and thus we can only use it as fair use. (This image alone generated quite a bit of vitriol on the talk page, so I loathe getting into this.)
  • Image:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg Photo of nazi symbols graffitied on some french cemetary. Fails 1 (anyone could take a photo of such, or make one as this /specific/ incident is not important), 8 (who can't figure out what a swastica on a tombstone looks like?) and the litmus test of the fair use policy.
  • Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg Book cover of an anti-Semitic book (well, I'm assuming, I cannot read it). If the book was discussed it might be fair use, but it is just thrown in there haphazardly without "critical commentary". Does not contribute much to the article (8).
  • Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg A Nazi propoganda image. It has a spurious PD-because tag (see WP:PD#World_War_II_images). Anyone can draw a representation of this, the specific one does not matter, etc so fair use is a no go (imo).
  • Image:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg another book cover, mostly the same issues as the other one, but at least this theme of the octopus is discussed briefly.
  • Image:DavidDukeonSyrianTV.jpg TV screenshot that really doesn't add anything to the article. There is no real reason to illustrate this particular segment, or is it illustrating David Duke? Is the http://www.memritv.org/View.asp?P1=941 link not linking to copyright infringment?
  • Image:Manchestergraffiti.jpg More graffiti. Same as the other one.
  • Image:Tariq Ali.jpg From commons, looks fine
  • Image:NewASMagenDavidswastika.jpg 1, 8 -- simple design, anyone can create a free alternative. The specific image is not that important, just about any would do.
  • Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg same as the graffiti
  • Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg Kind of specifically discussed by the text

Most of these also fail point 10 on specififying the copyright holders per 10 and the barest of fair use rationales when needed. FWIW, I think somone needs to go through all of SlimVirgin's uploads in particular. Many copy/paste fair use rationales and some things that are just plain wrong. Image:Hitlerwithdeer.GIF, Image:Hitlerdog.GIF (dubious PDs, no information given); Image:Judeasamaria.jpg, Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif maps are 99% of the time not fair use, it is even listed as a counterexample!; Image:PAMegrahihostage.jpg doesn't seem to be valid PD; Image:Weisbaden-Duggan.gif a map, labeled PD... that even has "© 2001 Microsoft Corportaion Alle Rechte vorbehalten" (all rights reserved) on it, huh?; many without any source data Image:PrimoLevi.gif, Image:DavidIckeprotest.gif, Image:Greer4.jpg; etc, but there are a decent number to go through. Kotepho 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was intending to do a flying visit here, so I haven't given this full attention yet. However, on the bulleted points I cannot find any fault with your logic. Only a few of these could ever be fair use. (I haven't looked at the article yet.) On Slim, I love her like a brother from another mother, so the thought of getting into a copyright stoush with her? Feh. But I am nothing if not dogged, so I'll look it over in the near future. If my heart breaks and my children become orphans, on your head be it. - brenneman

Plz answer

Please answer this before doing something rash, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea and would like a little discussion first. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I try never to do anything "rash." ^_^ As you had not responded last time I looked, I was going to ping you before I did anything anyway, but thanks for the note. - brenneman 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

will you block this guy?

i left a message on the admin intervention noticeboard but nobody is doing anything and he will not stop. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 06:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking now. - brenneman 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for twenty four hours. - brenneman 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Wikipediarules2221 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...

Regarding this block: Isn't 24 hours way too harsh? His edits weren't outright vandalism, going by his user talk. If you just want to get his notice, a 6- or 12-hour block would have done the trick, considering he just started editing without long pauses 2 hours ago. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user and hope he'll take your warning into consideration when he next edits. Kimchi.sg 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit

As requested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages Research Survey Request

Misplaced Pages Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Misplaced Pages. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Misplaced Pages as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Thanks

Thanks for your note.In fact if you had noticed,you would have discovered that I had to change my user ID primarily as I had been blocked innocently for vandalism on Rajput page which I had never visited.Once dab was able to sort it out,I reverted back to my original page.Could I have all the messages back please.(Vr 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

WP:GUS, the vengeance!

Misplaced Pages:German de-adminship solution. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Och aye, love the "Snakes On A Plane" style section title! I've replied on the talk page there, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
brenneman 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfD's

Initial discussion

I'm here. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think a good place to start is to list (as I've done below) all the recent closes. Then we can have a look at all of them, and discuss any that appear to be problems to anyone. Sound ok? - brenneman 02:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have little room to disagree here :) You've already made a recent list. Are you proposing that I add to the list by listing all my closes? That could get pretty long and I already have a slow browser. Anyway you could archive your talk page? SynergeticMaggot 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How recent? I just noticed you meant recent. SynergeticMaggot
I'm happy to work just from this shorter list as a "sample", and if there are any that are believed to be problematic than those can be added. And yes, I'll archive, but I always hate to do so with active items... it's like admitting defeat. - brenneman 02:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you could sort the below into "early closed" and "not so much" and perhaps note how early the early ones were, that would be a good start. - brenneman 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I placed a list on his talk page. He's done some fine, he's got 9 over the last 3 days that were blatantly early (I have some minor tolerance for ones done on the 5th day, mostly because there can be timestamp issues). I've made it clear which ones I have an issue with, and the response was hostility. I have three options: 1) try to correct his behavior, 2) bring every early close to DRV, or 3) Escalate it to the point where he'll be involuntarily forced to curb his actions. I don't want 3, and the community doesn't want 2. Sadly, 1 has been met with hostility. I'm not going to ignore it, so either the behavior must change or you'll have to be the one to be willing to mentor him on how to consistently do it right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Think of this as option 1.5. I don't have any reason to consider either one or the other of you as anything but reasonable, I'd like to think that I'm impartial to a fault. I do understand that you've made the same points on SM's talk, and that it wasn't going well. Here we can have a second go at talking, even if it means saying some of the same things again. But to begin with at least, it would be best if we:
  • Left all the previous discussion behind,
  • Limited ourselves to factual statements, and
  • All agreed that some good will come of this.
What that really means is that SM has agreed to PIQM (pseudo-informal-quasi-mediation,) I'm here, we're just waiting to see if you'll come to the party. It hinges on this: Do you trust me?
brenneman 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You know I trust you more than probably anyone else here, so I'm up for a shot at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm finished with the reorganizing task you've left me. I'd just like a ruling as to which ones I've done wrong, if any, so I can correct this mistake for further closes. SynergeticMaggot 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Early closes (from Administrator's Noticeboard)

21 Aug
20 Aug
19 Aug
  • 19:29, Aug 19, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario (→Boston, Ontario - Closed, nom withdrew)
    • BDJ - closed speedily even though it met none of the criteria. SM also reversed Samir's reopening after I noted the issues with the close.
    • SM - The recent close by CharWeb was done right in my eyes, and I thanked her for it. You (DBJ) requested that it be reopened for delete discussion and didnt bother to vote. Time waster.
      • Minor clarification. Boston, Ontario was closed 3 times. First by Samir, second by me, and third by CharWeb. BDjeff, you said that the second close was done wrong, and I just need clarification as to which close. Mine ( closed as uneeded reopen) , or CharWeb's which was subject to a second close due to the relist? Either way its a keeper. SynergeticMaggot 03:52, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
        • All three were incorrect, to be specific. Samir's was closed out of process, which is why he gladly reopened it. Yours was out of process, as it not only reversed the reopening, but closed it early without cause. The third was closed incorrectly as it was reopened as a fresh AfD following the listing at DRV, and was never up long enough to get the hearing it was supposed to get, and especially never given the opportunity for those with problems at the original AfD. So my original "second" was Char's, but upon clarification, the AfD has yet to be closed properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
  • 00:22, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Druthers (→Druthers - Closed as keep)
  • 00:14, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asma Kəsmə (→Asma Kəsmə - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • 00:09, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Brazil (→Gay rights in Brazil - Closed as keep)
18 Aug
17 Aug
Gap - Aug 16 to Aug 14
  • The list is both to get a feeling for how SM closes and to examine contended closes. No point dragging every single close in, this is probably enough to do both. - brenneman 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Aug 13

Blatant speedy closes

Redacted from here in edit. All information should be folded into section above. - brenneman 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll threatens to violate "use common names"

This "binding" poll is using majority voting to establish naming conventions that, as of now, fly in the face of established conventions. Using "Michigan M-1" for a highway named M-1 violates both our naming conventions and common sense. Of course you my disagree, in which case you should "vote" too. Because all that matters is a numerical majority. --SPUI (T - C) 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories: