| Revision as of 08:08, 20 August 2008 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Image closure: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:36, 20 August 2008 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Image closure: more serious.Next edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| May I respectfully suggest that you are personally in no position to make controversial closures in contentious NFCC IFD cases like the Conqueror one ? I could accept a keep (or rather: "no consensus") closure from a competent admin with a serious track record on image deletion issues. But, sorry, I can't accept it from you. You have no substantial experience in IfD closure work. You have only done two or three cases that I can find; in both the previous ones you suddenly popped up at IfD to save scouting-related images that were being defended by your friends. Now you close this one that I nominated, after me scrutinizing your own image uploads and calling you on a few bad cases. This reeks of retaliation. | May I respectfully suggest that you are personally in no position to make controversial closures in contentious NFCC IFD cases like the Conqueror one ? I could accept a keep (or rather: "no consensus") closure from a competent admin with a serious track record on image deletion issues. But, sorry, I can't accept it from you. You have no substantial experience in IfD closure work. You have only done two or three cases that I can find; in both the previous ones you suddenly popped up at IfD to save scouting-related images that were being defended by your friends. Now you close this one that I nominated, after me scrutinizing your own image uploads and calling you on a few bad cases. This reeks of retaliation. | ||
| Moreover, your own track record at non-free image uploads indicates you are either not competent to correctly judge copyright and NFC issues, or unwilling to follow the policies. Just the other day I caught you at a blatant case of copyvio, the fraudulent pd-self claim of ] |
Moreover, your own track record at non-free image uploads indicates you are either not competent to correctly judge copyright and NFC issues, or unwilling to follow the policies. Just the other day I caught you at a blatant case of copyvio, the fraudulent pd-self claim of ]. That alone would have been enough to get you desysopped. Today I find there's another of the same kind: ], where at least two components, as well as the overall idea of the composition, are quite obviously copied from motive, together with ]. I first thought it possible that your claim here (''"None of these items are copied from any 2001: A space odyssey film frame or other related artwork. I created each aspect of this image by hand in a graphics program"'') was just an error of judgment, and that you honestly believed that by just re-tracing the contours after the original in your graphics program you could avoid committing copyright violation. If it was just that, it would still document a degree of cluelessness that would make you unfit for being an administrator at this site, and very definitely unfit for venturing into closing IfD debates. But on checking the images again, I can no longer extend even that degree of AGF. The images are pixel-by-pixel identical. Your claim was just a lie. | ||
| (By the way, I've also tagged your replacement ] on commons, as it is evidently again based on some photograph and fails to declare its source.) | (By the way, I've also tagged your replacement ] on commons, as it is evidently again based on some photograph and fails to declare its source.) | ||
| Can I please ask you to revert your closure and let this be handled by somebody else with more experience and less grudge. ] ] 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | Can I please ask you to revert your closure and let this be handled by somebody else with more experience and less grudge. | ||
| Also, on having verified the nature of the copyvio, I have to ask you at this point: what are your criteria for recall? ] ] 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:36, 20 August 2008
|
|
Archives and sandboxes
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Defender
|
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
Award!
|
The Vandal Eliminator Award | |
| I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
RL Barnstar
|
The Real Life Barnstar | |
| For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Thank you. +Hexagon1 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)+Hexagon1 05:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
- Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Society Barnstar, Congrats
|
|
Society Barnstar | |
| For finding key public domain documents that proved George Thomas Coker's military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • } 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)} |
Problem
Unfortunately someone decided to disclose and use my full name as vandalism in an article. Here is the link I know I'm probably being a pain, but could you help me? Take care, thanks in advance, and have a great week... --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. That person didn't have the town I live in, but he did use my name unfortunately. It kinda freaked me out a bit. Sorry for the mess I made on your talk page. Not that proficient with Misplaced Pages code yet. Take care and have a great rest of your week. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Re-Breast talk
Dreadstar i have voice numerous time my objection to you becoming involved or contacting me for various reasons voiced before.
There is clearly not support anything that says consensus hasn't been made. The Survey went into a direction that Atom did not like so he claimed no consensus when it's clear the majority is in favor of the change.
I shouldn't have to repeat the same arguments and i haven't. I've stated the facts. 5 for 4 against. Where do you see how consensus wasn't made? Also I was not the first to think that WP:OWN would apply there as i stated numerous times. Also he keeps on saying the wrong numbers. he is mis representing consensus.
Why must you focus on me? I stated that the WP:TEND would apply to Atom because of his view on the illustration factor which he keeps voicing it over and over.
Please do not threaten me again, and keep from contacting me. I ask this for a ethical standard, given our past you are ethically obligated to maintain a distance and not interact or persuade others to interact for you. Yami (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked you multiple time to leave me alone. I have reported you multiple times and i have caught you and the other two involved with my blocking from the 5-8th in the wrong by fraternizing with the admin who blocked me again. After i had called you bias and it was clear that you became bias through your actions.
Also the one that handle my report against you told you to leave me alone, yet you keep coming back. Leave me alone, do not contact me or act through others. This is not a thing a admin should do. You are stepping on boundaries of civility now for one last time leave me alone. Yami (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
for the record it's 60% and in 2 weeks no one else voiced support or oppose. Also i saw no strict min on when consensus is met on the consensus article. The 75% or what ever might apply to admin's being elected but i don't think that number was ever meant to be represented in a survey for a image. Yami (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank you
— JGHowes - 19 August 2008
Image closure
May I respectfully suggest that you are personally in no position to make controversial closures in contentious NFCC IFD cases like the Conqueror one ? I could accept a keep (or rather: "no consensus") closure from a competent admin with a serious track record on image deletion issues. But, sorry, I can't accept it from you. You have no substantial experience in IfD closure work. You have only done two or three cases that I can find; in both the previous ones you suddenly popped up at IfD to save scouting-related images that were being defended by your friends. Now you close this one that I nominated, after me scrutinizing your own image uploads and calling you on a few bad cases. This reeks of retaliation.
Moreover, your own track record at non-free image uploads indicates you are either not competent to correctly judge copyright and NFC issues, or unwilling to follow the policies. Just the other day I caught you at a blatant case of copyvio, the fraudulent pd-self claim of Image:DSSword.jpg. That alone would have been enough to get you desysopped. Today I find there's another of the same kind: Image:2001question.jpg, where at least two components, as well as the overall idea of the composition, are quite obviously copied from this motive, together with Image:Hal-9000.jpg. I first thought it possible that your claim here ("None of these items are copied from any 2001: A space odyssey film frame or other related artwork. I created each aspect of this image by hand in a graphics program") was just an error of judgment, and that you honestly believed that by just re-tracing the contours after the original in your graphics program you could avoid committing copyright violation. If it was just that, it would still document a degree of cluelessness that would make you unfit for being an administrator at this site, and very definitely unfit for venturing into closing IfD debates. But on checking the images again, I can no longer extend even that degree of AGF. The images are pixel-by-pixel identical. Your claim was just a lie.
(By the way, I've also tagged your replacement Image:DSSword.jpg on commons, as it is evidently again based on some photograph and fails to declare its source.)
Can I please ask you to revert your closure and let this be handled by somebody else with more experience and less grudge.
Also, on having verified the nature of the copyvio, I have to ask you at this point: what are your criteria for recall? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)