User talk:Buffs: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:56, 1 May 2010 view sourceOldag07 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,000 edits →University of Texas at Dallas: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:51, 1 January 2025 view source Minorax (talk \| contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers191,566 edits Notification: proposed deletion of File:San diego state.gif.Tag: Twinkle
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{semi-retired}}
	{{User:BQZip01/header}}
	{{Divbox\|red\|'''Due to persistent harassment from an ], my main talk page is semi-protected. If you are unable to post here, you may contact me on ] You may also contact me via e-mail, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left.'''\|}}

			<!--{{User:BQZip01/header}}-->
	{{cent}}
			{{Divbox\|red\|'''Due to persistent harassment from an ], my main talk page is semi-protected. If you are unable to post here, you may contact me on ] You may also contact me via e-mail, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left.'''\|}}

			{{Divbox\|red\|'''I used to be known under a different user name, however, I was outed by a colleague. Due to concerns about my personal security I request that any users "in the know" refrain from using my previous name in discussions. Thank you'''\|}}
	]

			{{Divbox\|red\|'''In my time at WP, I have never asked for people to stay off my talk page until yesterday. It was always my intent to allow for free and open communications for 14+ years now, but the number of people actively taunting/harassing me/intentionally causing angst has reached a point that I do not feel I can continue this policy (this literally includes accusations of murder). It has become increasingly clear that some people are incapable of being ] and Admins are unwilling to enforce civility requirements on WP (beyond just unwilling to even issue warnings, actively deleting warnings and defending incivility). While I still believe in allowing general communication, I see no viable alternative to stop this behavior. This is a very disappointing decision for me, but I will control what I can, even if it is limited to just my talk page.
	{{archive box\|<small>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]</small>}}
	<!--{{userinfo}}-->

			Reasons for such choices generally involve ] and ].
	== Image and user space ==

			Seeing as how I'm not allowed to keep a list of those I've asked not to and why, I have no choice but to keep this list offline. If you are asked not to comment on my page and you "forget", please know I tried to keep a list so you'd know and be able to check...I will be asking for blocks if it is violated. This is the only warning I intend to make; ] will be my next step. ] (]) 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)'''\|}}
	Hello. I was wondering if you could remove ] from ]. The file is currently tagged as non-free. Non-free images should only be used on articles. I do understand that some of the files on that page are/were under discussion as to their non-free status, but the linked file is currently marked as non-free.--] (]) 07:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
	:As discussed now, all parties agree the image is PD. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

			<!--{{cent}}-->
	==Orphaned non-free media (File:Ernest_P._Worrell.jpg)==
	] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			{{archive box\|<small>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – present </small>}}
	If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 07:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
			<!--{{userinfo}}-->

	:Image is repeatedly being deleted from those articles by anonymous vandals. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

	==MfD nomination of ]==
	], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] ] 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

	==Air Force Blues==

	This discussion might interest you: ]. Thanks. - ] (]) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Notice ==

	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:User:BQZip01\|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:\|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. Please forgive the intrusion on your talk page. --] (]) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
	:''Another'' "run-to-admins" moment when you don't get your way? noted. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*It wan opportunity taken when you refused to follow ]. I'm sorry you see it as you apparently do. Your apprehension of the purpose of my effort is incorrect. Regardless, I concur with your assessment on its status after I find specific information about copyright notice and how it must be affixed. I've closed the WP:AN/I thread, since we agree (I think that's a first? :) ) and a warning to you on your conduct from an administrator will not have a beneficial effect. I've also posted agreement with your stance on the image's talk page. That resolved, I will now return to ignoring you, your talk page, your work, unless we happen across each other again elsewhere since we sometimes overlap in work areas, and respectfully ask you to stay off of my talk page unless there is an urgent matter at hand. Thank you, --] (]) 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*Your response to disagreeing with any of my actions is to immediately go to an ] or ] (usually framing the argument in your favor and twisting what was said). Guess what, that isn't ], that is elevating a dispute without any discussion. ] (which is "strangely" ''part'' of WP:DR...)dictates we should use the talk pages ''first''. Please try that first next time and listen to what is being said without jumping to the automatic conclusion that I am wrong and you are right. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Looking for some help with ] ==

	Heya, I've been working on reviving the long defunct ]. I've managed to get a lot of work done so far, but the biggest task is to get a complete set of "On this date..." pages created for the whole year. That's been a bit of a daunting task, and I haven't even gotten through January yet. See ]. I'm looking to see if someone could pick up another month and work through it, like maybe February. I've been trying to keep each date at about 6-8 items (events, birthdays, and deaths). See ] for a couple of websites that have events and birthdays for reference. The events website is a little suspect, so double check any events you find there with another source. Birthdays are pretty easy, but for Deaths I've been working through the "date" articles at Misplaced Pages and finding any there. If you have the time, would you care to help out? --]''''']''''' 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

	== WorcestershireProject newsletter ==

	I would just like to thank you for supporting my use of a PD coat of arms in non-article space :) --] (]) 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	:You're a relative amateur...]. :-) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Worcs coat of Arms ==

	Let Hammersoft have his way - he can spend the day checking the files and the copyright & permissino notices of all the English counties ;) --] (]) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

	:For the ones you listed, that will take all of 10 minutes. I'm interested in accuracy, not wasting Hammersoft's time. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

	::There are another 70 or so counties in England. all with the same problems. He's probably wasting his own time by drawing this discussion out, bordering on WP:CIVIL, and just not being helpful. If it only takes him 10 minutes, he could add the right © and FUR at the same time. We're ''all'' interested in accuracy.--] (]) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

	==Help needed==
	Thank you for the offer of help on the possible unfair use of an image. As I said, I just need the wording of the permission that I can ask the photographer to send and the address to whom he should send it. This shouldn't be complicated, but somehow WP culture makes it so. Your assistance would be appreciated.] (]) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	==Compliment==
	] has requested that I not post on his talk page (not entirely sure why, but it is his talk page and I'll respect that). However, I think it is appropriate to compliment him on and . Thanks for fixing things like that, HS! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	==B-52 Stratofortress==
	FYI, I wikified the ] on the article for the benefits of the many laymen out there, there were none found on the page as you had claimed existed in your edit summary before reverting my entry. Read also on ] and ], which were using the M24A1 20 mm cannons but of different caliber dimension and specifications, which is 20×110mm versus M61's 20×102mm. Thus, we have to be clear in our definition and description so that everyone can enjoy browsing/reading on Misplaced Pages without having to scratch too much of their head, agree? Other than that, no harm done... cheers~! --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Looks like . You are absolutely correct. My mistake. Thanks for providing a significant and useful link. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I'm afraid I have failed to make you see the point. A faithful photograph of a 2D object does not generate new copyright, a photograph of any 3D object does, even if the 3D object is a 2D work over a 3D support. --] (]) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	*Oh, I see your point. The problem is that ''everything'' is actually 3D. A frame is something that is designed in 3D, the design depicted in the tile ''is'' 2D. The degrading tile around it is incidental (certainly not passing the threshold of originality). <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::You still miss the point. It is irrelevant whether there is a copyrightable design or not on the stone. Since the stone is 3D, any picture of it generates new copyright for the photographer (in the same manner that a photograph of a slightly 3D non-copyrighted frame generates new copyright in US case law), hence we need her permission. Anyway (and without any aggressivity or animosity), I don't really care what is done with the picture on WP, as long as it keeps a "don't move to Commons" template. --] (]) 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I concur it should have a "don't move to Commons" template, but the image is 2d. As I stated above, the stone is incidental and not germane to the discussion. While it is 3d, so is the design (technically), but so is EVERYTHING in this world, but we treat a lot of flat things as 2D. Frames can be copyrighted, but they require design by a human. Deterioration over time fails the threshold of originality. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry to but in, but we don't have an author or source for that image really, so it might not be a good idea to restore the image. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'd like the chance to try. The image is of something from the 13th century. www.tineye.com provides a great way to find a source. There are also a few other options. In any case, all I'm asking for is a chance. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::More importantly, the image is a slavish copy of a 2D PF design. It is, by definition, PD, no matter what the source is. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I know tinyeye works for the Commons, but not sure about here. A chance will be given, but not sure when I will be able to look at it fully (and with due justice). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Talkback ==

	{{talkback\|SchuminWeb\|ts=19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

	== File:Publicprivateventures.gif is public domain? ==

	You told me "] is actually PD as it is ineligible for copyright. Use at your own discretion anywhere you wish."

	Why do you say that? I have created quite a number of logo files and used them in the infobox of various organizations. Why do you say it is Public Domain? I take to mean that inherent copyright as used on their website does not apply.

	Beyond that, this whole discussion started with the Misplaced Pages policy to not allow logos on talk pages, something I have been doing for months until a recent BOT challenged my usage. --] (]) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

	: Here are four more pages with logos I created from the organization website. Are their logos any different?

	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]--] (]) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

	::If you will look at the image in question, you will note that it is made up entirely of text and, as such, it is ineligible for copyright. It is therefore Public Domain, but it retains trademark protections.
	::As for the rest of the lead images you've noted:
	::#The Barrister's Association image has fallen into public domain if it was first published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice (use:{{t1\|PD-Pre1978}}) or between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered (use {{t1\|PD-US-1989}})
	::#The bicycle's association image would ahve to meet the aforementioned criteria in #1 to be PD. Otherwise, it has a copyright.
	::#The PHS logo by itself might be PD. but the background is not merely text. Try and find a plain logo and verify its first publishing date. Again check against #1 and apply the appropriate tag
	::#The reptile group needs to be checked vs the criteria listed in #1.

	::In all of these be sure to add {{t1\|trademark}} to those that are PD.

	::The issue is not that you cannot use logos, but, in fact, ANY non-free image on user pages. I would actually start more pages and spend less in "draft" form. This will avoid additional complications and the ]. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

	:::The Public Domain status of the logo for ] is now easy for me to understand. Thank you for going ahead and changing the status for File:Publicprivateventures.gif.

	:::As for the other four pages with logos, changing the status would depend on facts that I do not know. Quite frankly, I don’t see any point in researching further. Leaving the status as it is (a non-free use logo in a main-space article), would not seem to be any problem, as far as I understand the situation.

	:::In the five instances mentioned above, I obtained the logos from the official web sites of Philadelphia based organizations, after filling in the parameters of a infobox organization template, and filling in the information of an infobox fur template, I uploaded the logo image, and tried it out in the sandbox. Yes, I sought a very good result in the sandbox before transferring the final work to an ''existing'' article. What I wanted to avoid was a long string of updates in the main-space article history when creating and adjusting minor parts of the infobox. Thank you for your explanation, and I hope our discussion here will be informative for other editors. --] (]) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::I have uploaded PhiladelphiaSketchClub.jpg according to your information and advice. By your statements, I can now use it anywhere, including on your talk page. I intend to make an infobox, but sometime in the future. --] (]) 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not so sure on that one. There is a palette at the end and, unless that is part of a font, it isn't text. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I will consider changing it. --] (]) 11:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

	==Tineye==
	''Too hard!'' Maybe that came across as rude so sorry if it seemed like that. I don't recall how I set it up but when reviewing images I have a tineye button at the top of my menubar from which one can instantly call up a tineye request for that image. I thought it was in my preferences but it does not seem to be there. If I remember, I will drop you a note. Cheers ] (]) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
	:Don't worry about it. I'm just from a flying squadron where if you say something is "too hard" without throwing a "so to speak" on the end of the sentence, you'll get a lot of sophomoric, moderately juvenile chuckles. Is it under your monoscript.js file? In any case, it still would be useful to include that as a link for EVERYONE to easily click. However, I caution you to note that sometimes images appear on Misplaced Pages ''first'' and ''then'' other people use them. Let's make sure we take that into account. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

	== thankyou!!!! ==

	thanks for helping my page xxxx <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:You are welcome. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
	==MQS==
	Thanks for joining in so early. Speaking of which, the work you do here is different from what I usually do (except for occasional intersections at articles on Universities), so i've not really had occasion to look much at it before. Are you interested yourself? ''']''' (]) 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Just noticed ==

	Hey... I just noticed your user page. If only you were stationed down here at Barksdale instead... that would be pretty interesting. I'm probably the only editor/admin down here for 200 miles. Anyways... it's great to see a fellow Air Force editor here! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Alltel Wireless pic ==

	Thanks for adding those copyright tags. If it wasn't for you, the pic would have been deleted!\

	Thanks!
	--Jorge Francisco Paredes 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:You're welcome. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Coaching ==

	Sorry about the delay. I'll revist this evening. –''']''' \| ] 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
	:Also, could you please see ? Thanks. –''']''' \| ] 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


	== Image deletion ==

	Regarding ] i found some you mist please delete them as well.
	*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=TicketID%3D3139952&fulltext=Search&ns6=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search
	--] (]) 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

	*Unfortunately, I am not an admin. Label these as possibly unfree files and tag the for deletion (we should assume a typo is certainly possible and not throw the baby out with the bathwater...). <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

	== The proper way to handle non-free fair use logos ==

	I have listed at ] several logos uploaded by a user who claims to have created them and placed them in public domain. Most of these probably qualify for fair use and some are probably non-copyrightable public domain. I ] that PUF is not the proper forum for correcting these problems with sourcing and rationale, but I ] what I should be doing instead. Pointers to relevant ] would be appreciated. Thanks again for your patience. ] (]) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
	:I personally think ] is the ideal place. These files are often incorrectly uploaded. While a few can be fixed, many are deleteable and should be removed post haste. I believe our upload process has a '''lot''' to do with this and simple changes there should fix the vast majority of the problems. I'm working on a decision tree for images and I hope this basic structure will help people, but until it is finished, there is no way to know how well/poorly it will help. In the meantime, ] is probably the best forum. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
	::Alrighty then. Thank you for your reply. ] (]) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

	==I just wanted to say...==

	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #F0F8FF;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="top" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| For the time and effort you put into helping sort out copyright issues at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
	\|}

	...your dedication to ] is amazing. Noted and appreciated by at least one of your peers. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
	:Thank you. :-) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

	==Request==

	Can you look at the ] article I put together? One editor seems keen on a speedy deletion. Tell me if you think it had validity... Thanx! ] (]) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Mark Sublette] (]) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Re:Feedback request ==

	{{Tb\|Fastily\|Taunting/Profanity/Snide remarks/general incivility}}
	-''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	==You just modified a closed AfD template==

	It may be April Fool's Day, but, you need to comply with the template instructions not to modify it. --] (]) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	*. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	== more cowbell ==

	If you like "more cowbell", have you heard ]'s story about ? ] (]) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	==April 1==
	(not that stupid song!) <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:LOL, ya, twice, on the Jimbo noming himself for deletion, and on my talk. <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 06:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Your a bad bad man ;) ] ] 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Block him for 58 seconds, and me for 27 seconds for clicking it twice. <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 06:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::I can live with a block like that (BTW, I showed my wife and it took me a solid 4 minutes to get it shut down...block me for an additional minute...) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::LMFAO! I just ctrl+alt+del shut it down in seconds. <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 06:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Hmmm maybe a Rick rolled ban :) Had wanted to set something like that up, but when I clicked to see one of the changes, damn if it was there. Ahh to be better prepared next year. now back to ] where April fool's is spilling into the main space. ] ] 06:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I say we sit back, enjoy the day's festivities, and at 00:00 just revert everything to its state as of March 31. :-) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::'''Support''' due to ease. <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	== April Fools? ==

	I see your Mega Support and multiple voting for a RFA. See ANI for a post about new Misplaced Pages subscription fees (7 day comment period). ] (]) 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	== Proposal ==

	I am a ]. I made ] to an inquiry by {{User\|Hammersoft}} at the Third Opinion talk page and then had ] with him on his user talk page. To my best knowledge, I've had no other contact with either you or he, and have had no offwiki conversations with either of you. Though I did a bit of background checking, as noted in my comment on Hammersoft's talk page, I have not delved into the dispute between you beyond taking a look at the two things linked and referenced in that comment and looking at both your and his edit counts and block logs. In short, I am acting as a neutral in this matter for the limited purpose of trying to determine whether some compromise might be possible which would reduce the disputes between you. Ultimately for that to have any chance of working, both parties must agree in good faith to at least be willing to try to come to a compromise. That's not a commitment to ''reach'' a compromise, but it is a commitment to try in good faith to do so.

	The focus here would not be on determining who is right and who is wrong, which is, indeed, to be avoided, but to try to work out a way to get along and avoid — or at least reduce — further conflict. If a tacit agreement can be reached, we'll probably make it a (non–enforceable, since it can't be any other way) WikiAgreement between the two of you which you will both be honor–bound to follow.

	Nothing in this comment or this request is intended to say or imply that either of you has acted improperly or unreasonably. If you do not care to participate, that is wholly your choice, no explanation is needed or requested, and no blame is to be attached to saying no. Just so you know, if you say yes, I may attempt the mediation myself or I may find some other uninvolved neutral party to do it.

	Are you interested in participating? Best regards, ] (]) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC) <small>(Minor clarification added 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC). — ] (]).)</small>

	'''PS:''' And I, as a promise that I will not use any words larger than you can be reasonably expected to understand. ]

	'''PPS:''' One clarification: Though I came into this as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this proposal is not made under the auspices of that project. — ] (]) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	:I am all for any ] processes that end such problematic behavior, which is why I was working with Fastily regarding an RfC. However, if issues can be resolved through other means and not bugging any other users, I'm all for it. I would like for {{User\|Fastily}} to be included in any such discussion though as he is also working on an RfC and I asked him to jump in as a third opinion too (which would make yours the 4th?).
	:I have different concerns than HS, but I would first like to address his end-state goals:
	:#"''not follow the other's edits and make any sort of changes at such places based on following edits''"
	:#:I think that this does not follow with WP policies (as this is just s short note, I will expound later).
	:#"''recognize that we have areas of overlap in interest but where we happen across each other to minimize communication between each other as much as possible''"
	:#:Minimizing communication will not lead to resolution. It will lead to isolation. It also goes against ] and the precepts of other WP policies.
	:#"''not post to the other party's talk pages unless it is an emergency''"
	:#:An unnecessary request as I haven't posted on his talk page in some time. I have not made any such request of him or any other user (well, short of banned/indef blocked users)
	:I promise to go into details about the above and the issues I have with HS later, but I'm on a break right now and I need to get back to work. But in general, I see no basic problem with this. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	::Having looked at what you said above and the {{User\|Fastily}} talk page, let me re–emphasize that if you feel that it is necessary to assign or determine blame in order to resolve this matter, then the process which I am proposing will probably not work since it will be focused on working out a practical solution, not on figuring out who is right and who is wrong. (I'm not ''criticizing'' that need, please understand, if you feel that way, I'm just saying that movement in that direction is incompatible with what I've proposed.) I'll look forward to seeing your details. — ] (]) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::My entire goal is to stop HS behavior I believe is explicitly <!--by which I mean it is specifically written down-->unacceptable, disruptive, misleading, vilifying, uncivil, and generally counterproductive to cease. I am not interested in "assigning blame", I simply want such behavior to stop. If I'm misinterpreting something, I'd like to know it as well and I'll happily back down. Obviously HS has similar concerns. Because we each take issue with each other's behavior, diffs are going to be required to prove points of contention (otherwise all we have are accusations). I say we try it. Worst case: nothing gets solved, but no harm really either. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

	<!--moved from after TransporterMan's comments to provide a response to the original post-->
	::*BQZip01, I have multiple issues with you as well. I don't think we serve the best ends of this dispute resolution by going over it in any sort of detail. I want to keep this process as lightweight as possible. Can we agree we both have what we feel are voluminous quantities of evidence regarding the other's behavior and leave it at that? I don't want to get into a resolution process of diffs at ten paces. We could blast away at each, but at the end of it nothing would be resolved. I'm thinking of the scene (totally fictional btw, didn't happen in reality) where Hays and Swaggart start arguing in Apollo 13, and Lovell stops it in its tracks. --] (]) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	::*:"''I don't think we serve the best ends of this dispute resolution by going over it in any sort of detail.''" I disagree on many levels as specific actions are the crux of the issue. In general, your actions are fine (in many cases laudable), but in too many others they are not. I don't see how we can discuss the situation strictly in general terms, so I don't agree to that specific caveat. I am, however, willing to give this ] process a shot. We will see what happens, but let's hear what TM has to say before we make demands as to how the discussion must be run. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:OK, so you guys have some issues then? :) Is there any one specific issue you could each identify that you might be helped to reach agreement on? That would be a start.
	:TM, if you're willing to try to sort this then I'll throw my name in too. BQZ is familiar with my willingness to criticize directly when it's pertinent, HS is rather used to hearing criticism also, I'd expect. :) ] (]) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	No, my proposal is diff–free. I begin by presuming that you're both Kryptonite to one another. The issue isn't what you have or have not done to one another; the issue is what can we agree upon in order to keep the conflict from continuing. As far as I'm concerned you're both monsters or both saints: whichever way it is the point is you can't get along and our task is to determine a set of protocols by which you can (or can't and won't, in whole or in part) coexist without being at one another's throat. That will involve a compromise on both your parts. The definition of a compromise is an agreement that everyone is willing to make, but no one likes. It will almost necessarily involve your both giving up some degree of freedom or rights in order to buy peace. Let me ask again: are you (plural) willing to move this way to try to fix the problem? — ] (]) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I'm not entirely sure I can agree to this. I do not believe in appeasement (which appears to be what you are suggesting, though that may not have been your intent). I ''do'' believe in compromise, however. There is a vast difference in coming to a mutual agreement and giving up freedom or rights. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

	Here's the basic process I would foresee:

	1. Most of the negotiation will take place through me by email, so you'll need to provide me with an email address through my Misplaced Pages email form. I'll let you know mine once I've received yours. I will not provide either of your email addresses to the other party.

	2. I'll begin by asking each of you to answer two questions. I'll want your answers by email, privately, and I do not want you to reveal them to one another:

	(a) What would you want your opponent to do to settle this matter?

	(b) What concessions would you be willing to make to settle this matter?

	Your answers must be things which can be objectively ascertained: not "I want him to stop making threats," but "I only want him to edit on Wednesdays." Not, "I'd be willing to stop being incivil," but "I'd be willing to give up editing images of alligators."

	3. I'll evaluate your responses, discuss them with you privately and suggest modifications, and then see if I can split the difference and make a starting proposal.

	4. I'll then flip a coin to see who responds first. All offers and responses will come through me unless I ask for an open meeting (which we'll probably have on my talk page). When you make an offer, I'll feel free to suggest critiques and changes. We'll go back and forth until we either come to an agreement or stall out.

	5. If it looks like we're going to stall, I may suggest a final compromise, I may recommend a cooling off period and another try, or I may suggest some way to go forward mutually or individually. If both parties agree, I will tell you both what I think of your respective positions, but only if you both agree.

	If any party — including me — wants to terminate the process at any time, he can. I will expect courtesy and civility by all parties. — ] (]) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

	:1. I will not provide you , or almost any other Wikipedian, with my e-mail address (there are exactly THREE people on Misplaced Pages who have my address), but I will communicate through Misplaced Pages e-mail forms. It can be a pain, but it also can be done.
	:2. Provided HS agrees, I will send you answers to those questions.
	:Everything else sounds fine. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	:<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

	::Not a problem on the email; I feel the same way and the address you'll get for me will, indeed, not be my primary one but one which I only use for Misplaced Pages and which I can change at will. Let me note that if you email me using my email form that it will reveal your email address to me, so we'll have to work out something where you can send email to me without using my email form. A single–purpose Gmail account, perhaps? Once I click "Send" on this message I'll be off the air for the night, so I'll look for HS's response sometime tomorrow morning (after 13:00 UTC, more or less) tomorrow. G'nite. — ] (]) 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry, BQ, but I didn't see your 02:13, 2 April 2010, post regarding appeasement until this morning. The ] article here begins, "Appeasement is 'the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.'" If that is restated as, "appeasement is the process of settling quarrels by acknowledging and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the continuation of the quarrels and/or the resort to a confrontation before the community or administrators which will be wearying, disagreeable, and possibly dangerous to one's own interests," then that is indeed what I am proposing here. The process I've proposed here is basically the same as is used to attempt to settle lawsuits through mediation, modified for the circumstances here. Like any other compromise or negotiation it will, if it is to work, require both parties to give something up to get something back. In the lawsuit context, it's usually (but not always) one party giving up money in order to make the lawsuit go away, but there's no cash to be traded here. What's left to give up is, first, your own freedom or rights through self–imposed restrictions on one's actions here at Misplaced Pages and, second, the degree to which you want the other party to agree to restrict their freedom or rights. Let me suggest that while appeasement may or may not be a good idea on the international scale, that on the social–interaction scale, where the stakes are much lower, that appeasement makes perfect sense and fits in perfectly with what's been proven through game theory about maximizing one's outcome in a negotiation (see e.g. ]). Realize that the stakes are even lower than the lawsuit context here: we're only talking about the ''degree'' to which one will or will not ''voluntarily'' participate in what amounts to an avocation or hobby. It is your call, and I'm not trying to talk you into it or out of it, but there's no point in the three of us wasting out time in it if there's no chance that it is going to work. — ] (]) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) <small>(Slight Rewording to clarify meaning 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) — ] (]).)</small>
	:::::I agree there is no reason to be wasting time if there is no possible benefit, however, I also agree that negotiation is '''give'''-and-take, not just take. I think I may just be reading too much into some nuances (in my profession, those sorts of nuances are justification(s) for war...) and that what I took it as may not be as you intended. I also disagree with the appeasement article as that historically, appeasement has been used to coddle dictators threatening war. It usually emboldens the tyrants and encourages more threats. If goodwilled gestures are to be meaningful, there have to be goodwill gestures in return. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


	*TransporterMan, I agree to your envisaged process. --] (]) 16:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	*:I too will agree to this under the previously stated process. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

	I'd like to also have a third question answered: It appears to me that your primary point of conflict is in editing images and that your conflicts in other fora are merely extensions or expansions of disputes which start on image pages; is there any other type of page where the two of you regularly come into conflict or are likely to come into conflicts which originate there and do not begin on an image page? — ] (]) 16:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Near as I can tell, no. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

	Okay, we have the basic agreement in place. I've had the questions I posed answered by HS and am waiting for an email answer from BQ on the first two. (Please understand I'm not pushing when I mention this, I'm just keeping everyone up to speed on where we are.) — ] (]) 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Expect them later tonight...much later...
	::I'll watch for them. HS has told me in email that he'll be offline for the Easter weekend, so I'll probably do the same except to look at your question answers when you send them. I'll see everyone Monday morning. — ] (]) 01:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Good morning. Status report: Waiting for initial question answers from BQ by email. — ] (]) 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sent last night ~2AM. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent\|5}}
	My bad. My spam filter ate it. I have it whitelisted now. Sorry about that. Considering... — ] (]) 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

	Status report: Sent email to BQ at 16:02 UTC 5 Apr, awaiting reply. — ] (]) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	Status report: Have received substantive responses from both editors and I am considering what to do next. Will let both of you know by email. — ] (]) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

	Please see ] on my talk page. (If you've seen it already, please take another look as I've just added a new subsection about my further participation in your dispute.) — ] (]) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

	== Email ==

	You have email. -''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Got it. Will do. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

	== File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg ==

	Hi, BQZip01. At ] you said that a photograph created in the 1930s whose author is unknown is in the public domain in the United States, so you suggested that ] be kept with an appropriate change in the copyright tag. The image has been kept, but the licensing tag has not changed—it is still {{]}}, which makes the claim that the author died over 100 years ago (which is clearly false). Something needs to be done here. If there is an appropriate copyright tag for this situation, could you please change it?

	I would also be interested in learning more about the part of United States copyright law that you refer to—I don't think I've heard of it before. What does it mean to say "the author is unknown"? If the uploader of ] cropped off a copyright notice, say, can we legitimately claim that "the author is unknown" and therefore make an assertion that the image must be in the public domain? That seems unlikely to me. —] (]) 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

	:I certainly could have been more clear. . By author unknown, I meant that it was impossible to determine the author's age/date of death. Even so, the image is ''still'' PD because I see no copyright notice or any proof of copyright registration. Accordingly, and as long as it was first published in the U.S., this image is PD because it fails to comply with required formalities. {{t1\|PD-Pre1978}} would be a more appropriate tag, IMHO. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


	::Okay, but then by that reasoning it seems someone could upload ] without any mention of the original author or copyright situation, and we would then say that the image contains no copyright notice or proof of copyright registration and therefore must be in the public domain. What I'm saying is that I don't think we have any evidence that the ''original'' publication of ] lacked the "required formalities"—they may have simply been omitted somewhere along the chain of transmission between the original publication and Misplaced Pages. The image apparently passed through at least http://www.kolej.ournet.pl and ], and I have no particular reason to believe that either of these intermediaries was especially careful to keep the appropriate copyright information (especially CCMichalZ; see ] and the following 21 listings). —] (]) 17:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

			==Final Words==
	::Also, I have my doubts that this image was first published in the United States. I think it is more likely that it was first published in Poland. The caption in ] says, "Polish station on postcard, 1930s". —] (]) 17:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will.

			Misplaced Pages has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). ...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.
	:::Postcards are generally prints of things that have already been created, so it was likely created in the 30s. This gives us a rough timeframe and according to the aforementioned list, 1930+95=2025 as the earliest date it can be PD in the U.S. through U.S. copyright laws '''<u>unless</u> it was PD in Poland prior to 1996'''. In this case, we don't know exactly as we don't know who the author is (if we did know and they died prior to 1946, it is PD). Accordingly, I'm basing my conclusion on corporate authorship rules of 70 years past publication.
	:::GREAT discussion BTW. I look forward to your response, but I think this is one area in WP where we lack concrete guidance. If you'd like to help put together some guidance, let me know. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

			'''And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!''': . Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication.
	== Nobel Prize ==

			It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you.
	Hello! I found you on the ]. You description caught my eye! I've been working on the ] article now for a while and have managed to get it somewhere between GA and FA status. My goal is to bring it to FA status. However, the article would need some more copy editing/grammar check/general prose improvements and ] for that. Would you like to help? Cheers <font color="purple">] (] • ])</font> 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Thank you very much for your help and suggestions! I'll get to work on them as quickly as I can and then come back to you. --<font color="purple">] (] • ])</font> 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	::By the way, could you clarify what you mean with "picture groupings (ex: 5 on one row and 1 in the next in a gallery)"? --<font color="purple">] (] • ])</font> 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{talkback\|Esuzu}}

			Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. . I was even blocked for undoing ''clear'' vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need).
	== Some help with an image ==

			The remaining part of Misplaced Pages seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive.
	You mentioned on the PUF discussion for ] that you'd try to sort out the licensing for the image. I couldn't find a record of this specific design; I can find similar, but none with the stags so I'm not certain of the original date of this particular blazon. Similar blazons date back to the 1700s which would put them out of copyright range. Anyways, before I did anything else, I wanted to double check with you and see if you'd had any luck or if you wanted to work on a FUR like you mentioned.<p>I also wasn't certain about ] and ]. Clearly recent additions to the line, but assuming the uploader did create the images themselves from their descriptions (and not by copying an existing image), it was my understanding that the image creator could then release their interpretation of the blazon under whatever license they chose. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated :) ] <sup>]</sup> 08:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Short version: No, Misplaced Pages is not the place for such images.
	:Full answer:
	:#Images are largely date-dependent. In the case of the Addington CoA, it is PD by virtue of date in the US.
	:#In the case of the latter two images, they are the family crests of multiple families and are copyrighted. If you (or almost anyone else creating these images) just made them for the article and they are not official, then it likely falls into the category of ] and are unencyclopedic. Merely making "your interpretation" of the image still has copyright problems as it is a derivative image. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I think there's some confusion here. I'm not the uploader, I'm the admin getting ready to close these debates and you indicated you wanted a note before/if they were deleted. Two things:
	::#True, if we were talking images taken from elsewhere and uploaded here. This does not appear to be the case since the uploader says they created the images themselves.
	::#I don't think that's correct at all. For example, see ]. So long as the uploader is really creating these images themselves from the descriptions (and I haven't found anything similar on the web to indicate that they took or copied them from somewhere), there is no "copyright" on the blazon descriptions.

			While Misplaced Pages is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by ], a journalist and donor to Misplaced Pages, they just stopped responding.
	::I was looking for a second opinion since I deal with these so infrequently. I'll ask some of the more regular copyright admins. Thanks anyways. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

			IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of ] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. ] is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE".
	:::AH! I see your point. In that case, your assertions are correct regarding their copyright. However, I am not sure I see the usability of the images within WP if they are not the official images of the CoA. If I misunderstand the basics (are you saying there are no "official" images, only descriptions?), then there are basically no copyrights on such Coats of Arms, but of only images. As such, one could be released under compatible CC licenses. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 10:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

			Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; ''everything'' I did was a manual edit...think about it.
	== Re:RfC: Cleared Hot ==

			<!--Any responses/"corrections" to this will be summarily deleted. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on A&M-related pages.-->
	{{Tb\|Fastily\|RfC: Cleared Hot}}
			{{hat\|reason=further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.}}
	-''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
			: I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Misplaced Pages and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. ] (]) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Oldag07}} IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of ] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. ] (]) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
			:::I scratch my wiki editing itch on Fandom. I actually am an Administrator on the Civilization video game series wiki. https://civilization.fandom.com/Civilization_Games_Wiki I must admit, some fandom sites can be even more dictatorial and unwelcoming. I found one which definitely welcomes changes and doesn't chase people off. Sometimes it feels like the old days. and if you can't find a wiki of your liking, make a new one. ] (]) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
			:This is an unsolicited response, so feel free to revert. But I've been watching the A&M FAR and FAC -- though not commenting because it's not one of my areas of interest -- and absolutely agree with your complaints about how opaque FAC is. And I'm increasingly worried that if this is not all by design, then there's been a massive capitulation of coordinators' duties. Where else on Misplaced Pages is there such an existential aversion to working on the encyclopedia? GANs routinely have reviewers make grammar corrections and fix up sources -- that happened at my ], but it happens all the time. DYK reviews have people fix sourcing and review images ... and if those images are incorrectly licensed, people ''just fix them''. But FAC is just a series of unactionable complaints and unwritten norms, which requires one to speak in a secret language to decode, and make massive concessions with no basis in policy or encyclopedic writing. What other process makes it all but required to have shepherds guide newbies?
			:I remember nominating an article recently, and I was told that it reads poorly. I asked how. And I was told that FACs aren't supposed to substantially improve or change the article, despite ]. It's a black hole of effort for those who don't accede to random demands or speak their language. ] (]) 05:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Urve}} Glad I'm not alone. I think my biggest concern is what I expressed above: fiefdom-building. In that manner, WP is slowly walling itself off and elitists, while stating they want to improve WP, are actually hindering expansion efforts and improvements in the interests of attempting to achieve perfection and without risk (which is, in reality, unachievable). I've seen this build slowly for 10+ years. For example, people nominate files (images mostly) for deletion because they don't meet some criteria. The nominators and admins who delete it fail to consider and often refuse to take the time to understand copyright law, often erring so far on the side of safety as to be completely unreasonable (I once demonstrated a file was in the public domain as the image was clearly within the defined guidelines. The response was "By just over a year...barely" and a vote to delete it because it was "just too close"...the file and its talk page were ultimately deleted).
			::It's ''massively'' easier to criticized the work of others than make substantive improvements.
			::Given your interests, I think we're probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and I'm ''glad'' we have a forum like this to talk ''with'' each other!). The fact that we both see this, despite our differences in opinion, does not bode well for WP. ] (]) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
			:::Yes, we probably are. But I'm with you about fiefdom-building, and speaking in terms of content fiefdoms, that's especially true in my areas of interest. Take a look at articles like ] and ] to see versions of our own ]. ] for boring edit warring in its history. There are more egregious examples.
			:::I've given up on ArbCom or the admin corps doing anything about having little autonomous communities trying to wall themselves out; why take action against those who are "right"? And it's hard to not understand why. If anyone were in charge of an entire encyclopedia, they'd probably want their own versions of truth stated as fact. I can't blame you if this is the end of editing for you - despite our disagreements on many things, the openness of editing is what makes this place valuable. This isn't some plea for absolute liberal inclusionism -- ] is probably good guidance, man-woman marriage userboxes are probably needlessly divisive, people who can't accept when reliable sources disagree with them aren't here with our core values in mind -- but you're not someone I'd exclude. We should have internal disagreements on the project; when we all work together to create a work product, there will be contradictions, based on who we are as people and what we value, but there's always, always value in contradiction. ] (]) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

	== ~~RfC Notice~~ ==		== Nomination ==

			Buffs,
	An RfC involving you has been started at ]. Due to the nature of the dispute, I crafted the RfC to permit both bases for concern to be brought in the same RfC, as they are intertwined. I've left appropriate spaces for you to add your comments. You are of course encouraged to participate. Thank you, --] (]) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
	:And your attempt goes against the guidelines stated right at the top of the page (2nd sentence): "''This '''must''' involve the same dispute with a single user, '''not''' different disputes or '''multiple users.'''''" <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I was trying to help you. ]. Thank you, --] (]) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::BQ, I've asked HS for clarification ] on which RFC should go forth. I rather liked the idea of a combo, since you both have issues and certain core disagreements on policy - however if you're determined they should be separate and don't wish to discuss it further, then so be it I suppose. I'm thinking that I'll remove whichever RFC the two of you first agree is not required - perhaps I could be considered involved, but whatever, this is janitor work. ] (]) 02:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::I agree this is janitor work and I see no conflict of interest. As I stated above, delete the "joint" one. As it explicitly violates the rules, I see no reason to keep it.
	::::I have no issue with being judged on the merits of my own actions, but I do not want to confuse the issue. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

			I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. ] (]) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	==College Football Project request==
			:{{ping\|CollectiveSolidarity}} I'm not interested in dissenting with the coordinator. All I want is a clear explanation so I can address any shortcomings and an explanation how he determined consensus as it is perplexingly opaque to me.
			:Lastly, your support would have been appreciated for FA. I have no intention of going through an additional A/GA process. This article already had GA a LONG time ago. ] (]) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			::I did not know that I could support it, because I thought only coordinators could. However, I will support it next time it appears. ] (]) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::{{ping\|CollectiveSolidarity}} Would you like me to inform you next time I put it up? (just for clarity so I'm not accused of canvassing) ] (]) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::I check the ] noticeboards every now and then, so when it reappears again, I'll take a look at the discussion. But although I support the article as it stands, there may still be some overlooked concerns that other editors will notice. If that is the case, I will hold off my decision until you (or I) fix the issues. Cheers! ] (]) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping\|CollectiveSolidarity}} I'll take any feedback you have now. What changes have been asked for are currently unclear and I've asked for clarification. It feels very much like "do it my way or it isn't approved" overrides consensus. ] (]) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

			Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see ] on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- ] (]) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
	Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on ]. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--] (]) 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

			:I don't see it on the main page...scratches his head As for leaving, I'm going to confine my activities to a smaller set. But given the bias being shown here, I doubt it will ever change. Would you like to be notified next time I nom for FA? ] (]) 04:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
	== FUR plis ==

			== Final Words ==
	Hello. You said at ] that you'd add a non-free content rationale for this. Could you do that as nobody has objected? ] ] 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. There are also a few more at ]. Thx in advance, ] ] 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:]. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	::{{done}} <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

			:I have been saying as you. I hope you keep editing, and do not let them silence you.
	:::Many thanks! ] ] 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

			:Without more conservative voices, leftist politics will prevail masquerading as ]. As John Stossel pointed out, any altruism or sense of equality is simply gone. ] (]) 22:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
	==deleted images==
	I did give a reason for the images I speedied. They were blatant copyright violations, taken from a 1950 publication.
	I also warned the uploader, {{user\|Math920}}, who has a long record of blatant copyright violation. At some point we simply need to draw a line and impress on people that our guidelines aren't just there for decorative purposes. --] <small>]</small> 06:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Actually, on the ] page, you never gave a reason other than "The result of the discussion was '''delete'''. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

			== Best of luck for you ==
	I did never even see the PUF page. I saw the uploader's talkpage, and the blatant copyright violation, and that was enough for me. Look, this user was a racist troll lying through their teeth about owning image copyright. I am sure we don't need to open a lengthy bureaucratic procedure on cases as obvious as that. --] <small>]</small> 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

			I hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! ] (]) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			:As mentioned with Lightburst, at this point, we have pushed to the point where leftism is dominant on WP and it's practically just a numbers game. ] has not changed, but those controlling the levers have decided to label anything conservative as "unreliable" and anything leftist "reliable". It's a similar game across all of media. Fox News is no more right than the New York Times is left, but one is considered the gold standard and the other derided. This will not change until people realize the echo chamber they are creating. ] (]) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
	Hi BQZip01. When you've got time, could you please fix ]? Thanks. Best, ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
			::Buffs, it sucks that this is happening on Misplaced Pages. I believe that it would be fine to add all sources in most circumstances; we must maintain ]. But if there are any information that is contradicting, make a note about it in the article, i.e "New York Times claims that ....." and then "Fox News claims that .....", and vice versa. Seems a lot more neutral, right? Also, we can always use ] or ] when in doubt. Would that help? Also, welcome back to being unblocked! ] (]) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
	:Alright then. Thanks for having a look at it. I'll try to email you back sometime tomorrow - bit busy in RL at the moment. Regards, ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
			:::I certainly don't advocate for violating NPOV, but when you define the conversation as left = neutral, you aren't achieving NPOV. I've had zero success with RfCs or DRN. ] (]) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::Well, let me know in my talk page when anything in that nature occurs. I will try my best to help you. Best of luck, ] (]) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::::noted; thanks ] (]) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== Email ==
			<blockquote>'''Unused, redundant to ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	You have email. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== University of Texas at Dallas ==

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 12:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	BQZip01! I haven't talked to you for a while. Hoping all is well for you. Currently I am attending ] for grad school type stuff. I haven't been as active on WP as I would like. I have done some work cleaning up the ], and I have nominated it for a ]. Considering your considerable experience on the TAMU page, any suggestions would help. Thanks and gig em! ] (]) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:51, 1 January 2025

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages. Due to persistent harassment from an indef blocked user, my main talk page is semi-protected. If you are unable to post here, you may contact me on a page I've created exclusively for IP users and Newly Registered Users You may also contact me via e-mail, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left. I used to be known under a different user name, however, I was outed by a colleague. Due to concerns about my personal security I request that any users "in the know" refrain from using my previous name in discussions. Thank you In my time at WP, I have never asked for people to stay off my talk page until yesterday. It was always my intent to allow for free and open communications for 14+ years now, but the number of people actively taunting/harassing me/intentionally causing angst has reached a point that I do not feel I can continue this policy (this literally includes accusations of murder). It has become increasingly clear that some people are incapable of being WP:CIVIL and Admins are unwilling to enforce civility requirements on WP (beyond just unwilling to even issue warnings, actively deleting warnings and defending incivility). While I still believe in allowing general communication, I see no viable alternative to stop this behavior. This is a very disappointing decision for me, but I will control what I can, even if it is limited to just my talk page.

Reasons for such choices generally involve WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK.

Seeing as how I'm not allowed to keep a list of those I've asked not to and why, I have no choice but to keep this list offline. If you are asked not to comment on my page and you "forget", please know I tried to keep a list so you'd know and be able to check...I will be asking for blocks if it is violated. This is the only warning I intend to make; WP:ANI will be my next step. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1: 14 February 2007 – 6 May 2007
Archive 2: 10 May 2007 – 20 June 2007
Archive 3: 21 June 2007 – 31 December 2007
Archive 4: 1 January 2008 – 30 June 2008
Archive 5: 1 July 2008 – 31 December 2008
Archive 6: 1 January 2009 – 31 March 2009
Archive 7: 1 April 2009 – 30 June 2009
Archive 8: 1 July 2009 – 30 September 2009
Archive 9: 1 October 2009 – 31 December 2009
Archive 10: 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2010
Archive 11: 1 January 2011 – 31 August 2019
Archive 12: 1 September 2019 – 1 January 2022
Archive 13: 1 Jan 2022 – present

"History is written by the victors” except on Misplaced Pages, as your enemies are still alive & have lots of time on their hands - Elon Musk

Final Words

I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will.

Misplaced Pages has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). People have sneakily redefined "reliable sources" in terms that effectively exclude any conservative sources...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.

And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!: . Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication.

It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you.

Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. been banned for completely made up reasons with no clarification given despite repeated requests and it had to be taken to ArbCom to get resolved. I was even blocked for undoing clear vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need).

The remaining part of Misplaced Pages seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive.

While Misplaced Pages is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by John Stossel, a journalist and donor to Misplaced Pages, they just stopped responding.

IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR/FARC is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE".

Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; everything I did was a manual edit...think about it.

further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Misplaced Pages and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. Oldag07 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) @Oldag07: IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. Buffs (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) I scratch my wiki editing itch on Fandom. I actually am an Administrator on the Civilization video game series wiki. https://civilization.fandom.com/Civilization_Games_Wiki I must admit, some fandom sites can be even more dictatorial and unwelcoming. I found one which definitely welcomes changes and doesn't chase people off. Sometimes it feels like the old days. and if you can't find a wiki of your liking, make a new one. Oldag07 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC) This is an unsolicited response, so feel free to revert. But I've been watching the A&M FAR and FAC -- though not commenting because it's not one of my areas of interest -- and absolutely agree with your complaints about how opaque FAC is. And I'm increasingly worried that if this is not all by design, then there's been a massive capitulation of coordinators' duties. Where else on Misplaced Pages is there such an existential aversion to working on the encyclopedia? GANs routinely have reviewers make grammar corrections and fix up sources -- that happened at my most recent one, but it happens all the time. DYK reviews have people fix sourcing and review images ... and if those images are incorrectly licensed, people just fix them. But FAC is just a series of unactionable complaints and unwritten norms, which requires one to speak in a secret language to decode, and make massive concessions with no basis in policy or encyclopedic writing. What other process makes it all but required to have shepherds guide newbies? I remember nominating an article recently, and I was told that it reads poorly. I asked how. And I was told that FACs aren't supposed to substantially improve or change the article, despite that literally being acceptable per their own rules. It's a black hole of effort for those who don't accede to random demands or speak their language. Urve (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) @Urve: Glad I'm not alone. I think my biggest concern is what I expressed above: fiefdom-building. In that manner, WP is slowly walling itself off and elitists, while stating they want to improve WP, are actually hindering expansion efforts and improvements in the interests of attempting to achieve perfection and without risk (which is, in reality, unachievable). I've seen this build slowly for 10+ years. For example, people nominate files (images mostly) for deletion because they don't meet some criteria. The nominators and admins who delete it fail to consider and often refuse to take the time to understand copyright law, often erring so far on the side of safety as to be completely unreasonable (I once demonstrated a file was in the public domain as the image was clearly within the defined guidelines. The response was "By just over a year...barely" and a vote to delete it because it was "just too close"...the file and its talk page were ultimately deleted). It's massively easier to criticized the work of others than make substantive improvements. Given your interests, I think we're probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and I'm glad we have a forum like this to talk with each other!). The fact that we both see this, despite our differences in opinion, does not bode well for WP. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, we probably are. But I'm with you about fiefdom-building, and speaking in terms of content fiefdoms, that's especially true in my areas of interest. Take a look at articles like Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and J. K. Rowling to see versions of our own Kowloon. Man for boring edit warring in its history. There are more egregious examples. I've given up on ArbCom or the admin corps doing anything about having little autonomous communities trying to wall themselves out; why take action against those who are "right"? And it's hard to not understand why. If anyone were in charge of an entire encyclopedia, they'd probably want their own versions of truth stated as fact. I can't blame you if this is the end of editing for you - despite our disagreements on many things, the openness of editing is what makes this place valuable. This isn't some plea for absolute liberal inclusionism -- WP:NONAZIS is probably good guidance, man-woman marriage userboxes are probably needlessly divisive, people who can't accept when reliable sources disagree with them aren't here with our core values in mind -- but you're not someone I'd exclude. We should have internal disagreements on the project; when we all work together to create a work product, there will be contradictions, based on who we are as people and what we value, but there's always, always value in contradiction. Urve (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Nomination Buffs, I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: I'm not interested in dissenting with the coordinator. All I want is a clear explanation so I can address any shortcomings and an explanation how he determined consensus as it is perplexingly opaque to me. Lastly, your support would have been appreciated for FA. I have no intention of going through an additional A/GA process. This article already had GA a LONG time ago. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I did not know that I could support it, because I thought only coordinators could. However, I will support it next time it appears. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: Would you like me to inform you next time I put it up? (just for clarity so I'm not accused of canvassing) Buffs (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I check the WP:FAC noticeboards every now and then, so when it reappears again, I'll take a look at the discussion. But although I support the article as it stands, there may still be some overlooked concerns that other editors will notice. If that is the case, I will hold off my decision until you (or I) fix the issues. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @CollectiveSolidarity: I'll take any feedback you have now. What changes have been asked for are currently unclear and I've asked for clarification. It feels very much like "do it my way or it isn't approved" overrides consensus. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see Texas A&M University on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC) I don't see it on the main page...scratches his head As for leaving, I'm going to confine my activities to a smaller set. But given the bias being shown here, I doubt it will ever change. Would you like to be notified next time I nom for FA? Buffs (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Final Words I have been saying much the same as you. I hope you keep editing, and do not let them silence you. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Without more conservative voices, leftist politics will prevail masquerading as WP:NPOV. As John Stossel pointed out, any altruism or sense of equality is simply gone. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Best of luck for you I hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) As mentioned with Lightburst, at this point, we have pushed to the point where leftism is dominant on WP and it's practically just a numbers game. WP:RS has not changed, but those controlling the levers have decided to label anything conservative as "unreliable" and anything leftist "reliable". It's a similar game across all of media. Fox News is no more right than the New York Times is left, but one is considered the gold standard and the other derided. This will not change until people realize the echo chamber they are creating. Buffs (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Buffs, it sucks that this is happening on Misplaced Pages. I believe that it would be fine to add all sources in most circumstances; we must maintain WP:NPOV. But if there are any information that is contradicting, make a note about it in the article, i.e "New York Times claims that ....." and then "Fox News claims that .....", and vice versa. Seems a lot more neutral, right? Also, we can always use DRN or RFC when in doubt. Would that help? Also, welcome back to being unblocked! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) I certainly don't advocate for violating NPOV, but when you define the conversation as left = neutral, you aren't achieving NPOV. I've had zero success with RfCs or DRN. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC) Well, let me know in my talk page when anything in that nature occurs. I will try my best to help you. Best of luck, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC) noted; thanks Buffs (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.

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

I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Misplaced Pages and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. Oldag07 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Oldag07: IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. Buffs (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I scratch my wiki editing itch on Fandom. I actually am an Administrator on the Civilization video game series wiki. https://civilization.fandom.com/Civilization_Games_Wiki I must admit, some fandom sites can be even more dictatorial and unwelcoming. I found one which definitely welcomes changes and doesn't chase people off. Sometimes it feels like the old days. and if you can't find a wiki of your liking, make a new one. Oldag07 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an unsolicited response, so feel free to revert. But I've been watching the A&M FAR and FAC -- though not commenting because it's not one of my areas of interest -- and absolutely agree with your complaints about how opaque FAC is. And I'm increasingly worried that if this is not all by design, then there's been a massive capitulation of coordinators' duties. Where else on Misplaced Pages is there such an existential aversion to working on the encyclopedia? GANs routinely have reviewers make grammar corrections and fix up sources -- that happened at my most recent one, but it happens all the time. DYK reviews have people fix sourcing and review images ... and if those images are incorrectly licensed, people just fix them. But FAC is just a series of unactionable complaints and unwritten norms, which requires one to speak in a secret language to decode, and make massive concessions with no basis in policy or encyclopedic writing. What other process makes it all but required to have shepherds guide newbies?

I remember nominating an article recently, and I was told that it reads poorly. I asked how. And I was told that FACs aren't supposed to substantially improve or change the article, despite that literally being acceptable per their own rules. It's a black hole of effort for those who don't accede to random demands or speak their language. Urve (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Urve: Glad I'm not alone. I think my biggest concern is what I expressed above: fiefdom-building. In that manner, WP is slowly walling itself off and elitists, while stating they want to improve WP, are actually hindering expansion efforts and improvements in the interests of attempting to achieve perfection and without risk (which is, in reality, unachievable). I've seen this build slowly for 10+ years. For example, people nominate files (images mostly) for deletion because they don't meet some criteria. The nominators and admins who delete it fail to consider and often refuse to take the time to understand copyright law, often erring so far on the side of safety as to be completely unreasonable (I once demonstrated a file was in the public domain as the image was clearly within the defined guidelines. The response was "By just over a year...barely" and a vote to delete it because it was "just too close"...the file and its talk page were ultimately deleted).

It's massively easier to criticized the work of others than make substantive improvements.

Given your interests, I think we're probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and I'm glad we have a forum like this to talk with each other!). The fact that we both see this, despite our differences in opinion, does not bode well for WP. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we probably are. But I'm with you about fiefdom-building, and speaking in terms of content fiefdoms, that's especially true in my areas of interest. Take a look at articles like Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and J. K. Rowling to see versions of our own Kowloon. Man for boring edit warring in its history. There are more egregious examples.

I've given up on ArbCom or the admin corps doing anything about having little autonomous communities trying to wall themselves out; why take action against those who are "right"? And it's hard to not understand why. If anyone were in charge of an entire encyclopedia, they'd probably want their own versions of truth stated as fact. I can't blame you if this is the end of editing for you - despite our disagreements on many things, the openness of editing is what makes this place valuable. This isn't some plea for absolute liberal inclusionism -- WP:NONAZIS is probably good guidance, man-woman marriage userboxes are probably needlessly divisive, people who can't accept when reliable sources disagree with them aren't here with our core values in mind -- but you're not someone I'd exclude. We should have internal disagreements on the project; when we all work together to create a work product, there will be contradictions, based on who we are as people and what we value, but there's always, always value in contradiction. Urve (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Buffs,

I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: I'm not interested in dissenting with the coordinator. All I want is a clear explanation so I can address any shortcomings and an explanation how he determined consensus as it is perplexingly opaque to me.

Lastly, your support would have been appreciated for FA. I have no intention of going through an additional A/GA process. This article already had GA a LONG time ago. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not know that I could support it, because I thought only coordinators could. However, I will support it next time it appears. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Would you like me to inform you next time I put it up? (just for clarity so I'm not accused of canvassing) Buffs (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I check the WP:FAC noticeboards every now and then, so when it reappears again, I'll take a look at the discussion. But although I support the article as it stands, there may still be some overlooked concerns that other editors will notice. If that is the case, I will hold off my decision until you (or I) fix the issues. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: I'll take any feedback you have now. What changes have been asked for are currently unclear and I've asked for clarification. It feels very much like "do it my way or it isn't approved" overrides consensus. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see Texas A&M University on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it on the main page...*scratches his head* As for leaving, I'm going to confine my activities to a smaller set. But given the bias being shown here, I doubt it will ever change. Would you like to be notified next time I nom for FA? Buffs (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Final Words

I have been saying much the same as you. I hope you keep editing, and do not let them silence you.

Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Without more conservative voices, leftist politics will prevail masquerading as WP:NPOV. As John Stossel pointed out, any altruism or sense of equality is simply gone. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck for you

I hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned with Lightburst, at this point, we have pushed to the point where leftism is dominant on WP and it's practically just a numbers game. WP:RS has not changed, but those controlling the levers have decided to label anything conservative as "unreliable" and anything leftist "reliable". It's a similar game across all of media. Fox News is no more right than the New York Times is left, but one is considered the gold standard and the other derided. This will not change until people realize the echo chamber they are creating. Buffs (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffs, it sucks that this is happening on Misplaced Pages. I believe that it would be fine to add all sources in most circumstances; we must maintain WP:NPOV. But if there are any information that is contradicting, make a note about it in the article, i.e "New York Times claims that ....." and then "Fox News claims that .....", and vice versa. Seems a lot more neutral, right? Also, we can always use DRN or RFC when in doubt. Would that help? Also, welcome back to being unblocked! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't advocate for violating NPOV, but when you define the conversation as left = neutral, you aren't achieving NPOV. I've had zero success with RfCs or DRN. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, let me know in my talk page when anything in that nature occurs. I will try my best to help you. Best of luck, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

noted; thanks Buffs (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:San diego state.gif

The file File:San diego state.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, redundant to File:San Diego State athletics logo, 1997-2001.gif.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Min☠︎rax 12:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)