User talk:Agapetos angel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:48, 8 February 2006 editGuettarda (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits →Misunderstanding ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:01, 19 May 2019 edit undoFastilyBot (talk \| contribs)Bots239,264 edits BOT: Notify user of possible file issue(s)
(241 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== Image:Sarfati.jpg ==
	New day dawns ....
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

			# Go to ] and edit it to add <code><nowiki>{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}</nowiki></code>, '''without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template'''.
	== No more red-link! ==
			# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

			Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.
	You have a shiny new user page, congratulations! I appreciate your discussing the article in detail, and I note your concern over the 3RR and "over-implementation" thereof. If you feel you're being treated unreasonably again, drop me an email (via my user page) and I'll take a look at it, and prevail upon the blocking admin if it seems to me there's a bad call. ] 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

			If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Replaceable --> ] 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
	== Answers in Genesis incorporation information ==

			== Input requested ==
	Hi. I'm responding to the message left at ]. I tried to leave the source on the page, but it looks like that has been removed. It is from the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Kentucky Secretary of State, and I don't believe it is available online. This is all I could find that's online: and . ] 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

			Your input is requested Thank you. --] 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
	: I guess another editor thought it didn't need to be there, or perhaps deleted it because it was unsourced? I don't know. Maybe add it with the sources, or go to talk and ask if it shouldn't be there. ] 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

			==File source problem with File:Scream.JPG==
	== Dispute tag ==
			]
			Thank you for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

			If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''' per Misplaced Pages's ], ]. If the image is ] and ], '''the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)''' per ] criterion ]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	AA, sorry about the dispute tag removal, that was one Wiki rule I was unaware of, so thanks for pointing it out. (I suppose there are still things to learn about Wiki for all of us). I intended no vandalism, as that's just not part of my ''modus operandi''. Sarcasm, yes, vandalism, no. ] 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
	: No worries ] 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	::That was added to the Vandalism page Jan 14, 2006. As such, it is quite new and I would not expect everyone to be aware of it. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
	::: And I appreciated that Jim apologize rather than flying off the handle :) ] 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 -->

			== ] ==
	== Adding dispute tags ==

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
	Adding dispute tags to a page, where there is '''clear consensus''' that it is fine, in this case because you disagree with the ] policy, is vandalism. Explain your objections on the talk page. And that means proper explanation, not whinging that you want a section removed because it notes criticisms of someone with extremely unorthodox views. Oh, and remember the 3RR, won't you? — ]\|] 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 -->
	: Dunc, that's just it. There is no clear consensus (see Talk). Editors are still working on a respectable version, from both 'sides' of the debate over that section. Therefore, removing the tag is vandalism. And I didn't revert the last one; just left you a note so you would see it (since you don't appear to be reading the Talk). Thanks ] 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
	:: "want a section removed because it notes criticisms" is not the issue, as explained in talk. Verifiability is. ] 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	Well it appears that only you dispute it. Your "verifiability" is a rather transparent subversion of policy to remove criticism. How's about this for policy: ] is non-negotiable (?). Do you recognise ]? btw, you do know ] isn't based on real events don't you? — ]\|] 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
			<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	:Sarcasm, cute. Verifiablity is being attempted/added and edits are being currently being discussed in talk (if you look there, you will see that even Alai is getting frustrated with your reverts that are removing valid links and edit that he made). How about this? Please read talk, please stop vandalising the article by removing tags, and please stop accusing me of failing to follow NPOV when you aren't even in the ballpark of the dispute discussion, k? Furthermore, please see your talk where I outlined that your last revert wasn't a revert of anything. ] 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== Misunderstanding ==
	not <s>Forgery</s>

			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 -->
	Please delete your attempt to sign my name to a poll ''immediately''. Your deceitful behaviour is not appreciated. ] 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	: I did not, as I explained in talk, commit 'forgery'. It was a summary of opinions, not a signature on a poll. ] 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

			<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
	::Names on a list ''is'' a forgery unless the owner's added their own names. What is so hard to understand about this? There is a misunderstanding, but it is yours. Remove the names. All of them that you added, except "Agapetos angel". ]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::: I disagree, but made the suggested revision already so Blind Freddy can see that it was summary, not poll. ] 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::What exactly do you mean by "''Blind Freddy''"? Looking over your use of Guettarda's username at ], it's pretty clear what you were attempting to do. And adding/signing the usernames of others there crossed the line. I've warned you about POV pushing already, and you've chosen to dismiss or discount my warnings. Your actions there are rapidly approaching the point where others will legitimately demand administrative intervention to put right. Again, I suggest you take a wikibreak from this article, find something non-controversial to edit for a while, and use that time to rethink you participation on this topic. When you've got 3 admins telling you to chill out you're likely doing something very wrong. As for this "poll/summary" of yours, its time has long passed, you're merely using it to force the issue for your version of the content, which others have rightly identified as pov. This situation is addressed specifically at ]: "''If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding.''" ] 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

	:I have responded to this in the appropriate talk. is an Australian euphemism, the meaning of which is obvious. Review of your participation in the discussion, with its false accusations and ''ad homs'', would show that your 'admonishment' comes with conflict-of-interest. I would kindly suggest that ''you'' step back and examine your behaviour, as it does not represent the standards of impartiality necessary for an admin. There was assumed malice where none was intended. The summary that was misconstrued came ''after'' an attempt at a poll, and therefore, was not signatures on a poll, but rather a listing of names that participated or 'rang in'. After discussion with KC, I made the changes she requested/required. Ringing in after the fact only emphasises your attempts to discredit me, as illustrated several times in talk, as an editor, rather than either responding to content, or attempting to assist me and the other editors who are working together with compromise to achieve a well-written article. ] 03:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

	I see that you are '''still''' putting words in my mouth over there. I asked you to '''remove''' those claims. Why are you attributing opinions to me that I have not expressed? ] 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	: Guettarda, expressing that you disagree with my assessment, that your dissent was implied, ''after'' my assessment is appropriate. Editing my post was not. ] 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	::You are dishonestly characterising my contribution and you refuse to remove the offending material - in fact, after I struck out your comments you replaced them This behaviour is totally out of line and deply dishonest. ] 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	::: I 'characterised' your response to the subject rather than posting all your objections. You did, in fact, edit my comment, and after KC requested/required that I make changed, I removed your edit to MY post. You have no right to edit my post in any fashion. Complain after the fact, but leave my postings alone. ] 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::First you signed my name to a list. When I struck it out you replaced it with a post that stated I did not say what I said. I am fed up of your intentional mischaracterisation of what I said. I can edit your post to remove personal attacks, and I can edit your post to remove lies about me. It isn't like I made it look like ''you'' were saying what I had to say - '''unlike you'''. Lay off the dishonesty. Stop making claims in my name which are outright false. Is that too much to ask? There is no reason that I have to tolerate your mischaracterisation. I asked you to change it, you refused. I am under no obligation to tolerate your dishonesty. ] 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::::: I, as requested by an admin after you complained, changed the bullet list that was misconstued as a poll (even though it came after the 'poll' and was obviously a summary). Saying that your dissent was implied was not dishonest, and regardless of that fact, did not give you the right to edit my postings in any way. Your disagreement with my assessment, posted after my assessment, would have been sufficient. Your continued editing (and now deletion) of my postings is not appropriate. ]

	:::::::It ''is'' dishonest to keep insisting that I said something when I said nothing of the sort. You ''don't'' have to right to make dishonest claims about what I said. If you refuse to remove them, then I have no choice but to remove them. It isn't a matter of "disagreement with my assessment" - you are making outright brazenly false statements, and you insisted on making them despite my insistence that you remove the misleading material. You have no right to put words in my mouth. You have no right to insist on your right to lie. You can't just go around claiming that people said things they did not say. Why is it too much to ask that you quit attributing statements to me which I did not make and did not imply? ] 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::: is the latest of your complaints, which only continues to support my point that it was implied that you do not agree with the header revision as proposed. You have NO right to remove or alter my posts in any fashion. Complain if you must, but do not edit my posts. ] 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::::Your insistence that you have a right to lie about what other people have said is highly disturbing. Stop making dishonest claims about what people have said and you won't have to worry about people removing those claims. Simple enough. ] 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Lampchop==

	"''Do I really look like Lambchop to ewe?''"

	:I sheepishly came to check out your ewe-ser page. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your goat. Hopefully we can shear the POV leaving articles that will not be subject to future lamb-poons. ;-) ] ] 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

	:: LOL! Well done, mate! ] 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:01, 19 May 2019

Image:Sarfati.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarfati.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hbdragon88 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

Your input is requested here. Thank you. --profg 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Scream.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Scream.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Proposed deletion of File:Dragon sym.jpg

The file File:Dragon sym.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)