Misplaced Pages

My RfB

Thanks for the questions. Just to be clear, are you looking for a succession of one-word answers in Q8, or is one word answer, followed by justification OK? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This will sound silly, but it's your question, so I'll answer it in the way you wish, lol. If anyone wants my rationales they can post their own question. Please see my note - I'll probably take a good while to do justice to the question. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just flicked this one open. I'm so puzzled you could put me in a box and sell me in a toy shop. I'll have to look into it, but it's made me smile so thanks for that. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. A bit more investigation and I'm with it now. I actually laughed out loud. I'm going off wiki now. I'll try and work on that list later tonight, otherwise I'll progress it tomorrow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Silkroad Online

Silkroad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Per your protection log note, I'm requesting unsalting (or undeletion, if necessary due to the huge # of prior edits) of the Silkroad Online article at DRV. I've got a new stub in my userspace (User:Matt Fitzpatrick/Silkroad Online) that I think would be a good (re)start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21

Hi. Unfortunately we have come across a deletionist who seemingly intends to try to delete all of adequate fair use images that we have on wikipedia. For instance Image:Yone Minagawa.jpg etc etc. Fully complies with fairuse and it is potentially destructive for this editor to be nominating mass images in this way. I;ve uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia only if they fully comply with general wikipedia policy on irresplaceable imahes and am not going to tolerate having my images drilled at me like is being done.

For instance he has nominated the image in Soe Win because it is non notable? Can you believe this is his criteria? The Bald One 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 2 Interpretation

You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we use a news agency's image of an event/person to illustrate a text about that event/person, we are replacing the original market role for that image. You may want to take it to WT:NFCC yourself, if you're still unsure. --Damiens.rf 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your're still unsure? Do you have to be so patronizing? You;ve already tried to make out that some of our most established users including Bisanz, User:Maxim, J Milburn and myself are clueless about what images are acceptable when we all have a lot of experience with dealing with such issues on wikipedia. The Bald One 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bisanz if I am going to have messages drilled at me everytime I log in because somebody disagrees with the rationale I am in for one hell of a future on here because I have uploaded thousands upon thousands of similar images and I am going to get it all thrown back at me and have my talk page spammed with them. I am very concerned about this and I don't want to have to waste all my time on here defending images when I could be getting on with what I do. It is disruptive and not helpful to wikipedia and basically I am going to be punished big time by being drilled images for deletion for trying to help wikipedia,, The Bald One 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:AN or WP:RFC, there is ample precedent that users such as this who specialize in non-free content review must act with care in their actions. MBisanz 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The worrying thing is that there are other deletionist editors spurring him on and "very much encouraging" him to delete content. We've seen the images for deletion page completely swamped today to almost record levels, jumping on the band wagon. He is going to make an awful lot of editors unhappy in doing so, particularly those images which have a full rationale which the uploader has spent time adding. Once again there seems to be a different perception of fair use criteria in that in one piece of rationale it clearly is valid and in others it makes it look invalid. If he continues to swamp the images for deletion pages then I will certainyl be reporting him. There is a difference between good faith intentions, and a mass nuke attempt of images which are currently being used of encyclopedic purposes on wikipedia. In my view such a course of action does nothing to improve wikipedias content and is not constructive. I'm sure there are many images which don't qualify for fair use on here, but I for sure am not prepared to see such images as those politicians and deceased bio images deleted. Its put me off editing today to be honest in that you never know what will come of your work and time you put into wikipedia if people invent ways and justify deleting it. The Bald One 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone linked me to a news article off-wiki that seems to indicate that a news image of a dead person is not fair use unless the image itself is the subject of the article, so I'm a bit unsure on how to proceed, since I've always seen death as a good enough ground to go fairuse. This needs further discussion somewhere other than weeklong, image specific IFDs. MBisanz 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the person is dead or not plays no role at all in real-life fair use law. In fact, the moment a prominent person dies it may very well increase the market stakes in existing commercial images, because it opens a whole new temporary market for the news coverage of their death. The only thing about dead or not dead is that death affects the Misplaced Pages-internal "irreplaceability" condition, which is not a fair use factor but a self-chosen rule that an image has to pass on top of being fair use. That brings into play things like promotional, "non-commercial-only" or "by permission" images provided by the dead person's heirs or organisation, which would otherwise be categorically excluded for living people. But images of dead people still need to pass all other criteria, and any that fail NFCC2 have no chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help certainly but the changing of image policies on here and the difference in views on what is fairuse is undoubtedly an ongoing struggle on here which is one of the most demanding I;ve faced on here. Similarly, limited use of screenshots of films were permitted for identification of a key scene in a film and to illustrate its content but now there is a major effort to remove these images because now images are only permitted to critically analyse a film in a production section not in the actual film contents. I can sort of see why some people might think they are doing the God of Fair Use Imagery's goodwork by removing them, vbt it is kind of a frustrating one that these people aren't spending their time filling out stubs and building the encyclopedia constructively instead. Some images you can see should be deleted a mile off, but it is the ones where there is a clear divide on their acceptability, which if this news agency policy is used as an excuse to delete then we are going to lose a dreadful amount of irreplaceable content, whicb will be a further blow. The Bald One 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for further reference about news agency images, please see WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (item I.6), and also the DRV cases at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 27 and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29 (about Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg and Image:Belgrade Kosovo is serbia protest Obraz flag Karadzic portrait.jpg respectively). Just the first such case that comes to mind. These deletions are extremely routine and all fall squarely under CSD I7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with your block, i got through it. i just thought you should know a little history between me and Rlevse and Dreadstar

During the first block (my first) and 1/2 The admins wanted me to admit wrong doing before even attempting to listen to me. When they did ask for evidence of others wrong doing they ignored it and told me i was pushing the blame on others. Wasting my time making me look for something they could have looked for themselves. it takes 2+ to edit was and usually 2+ to be uncivil.

It just seems to me that Rlevse and Dreadstar are/were protecting the editors on the breast article who have been there a lot longer then me, and have worked with the two or at least Dreadstar who worked with Rlevse.

I hate digging up a dead horse. beating it or being the one that killed it, but during the first dispute Dreadstar focused on me not indenting on the talk page, "Being uncivil" and edit waring with multiple users.

Yes i edit wared with the lead and possibly the removal of images in the gallery, but these things seem so small yet these editors make a big deal out of it.

I might have got a tone here and there, but getting called this and that (WP:TEND) and being accused of censorship and sexualizing images would rub anyone wrong and put a little venom in them.

But i get zeroed in on by Dreadstar who left the others alone, didn't even ask them a question or comment on their talk page that they might be responsible for something.

Do you know how many images were in the gallery on the breast article when I first arrived? 57 images, and I removed 8 of them. Asher196 reverted it every time and after the second time claimed it was to big of a change and would need consensus. You might be able to see why I accused these editors of WP:OWN. I mean to make a fuss over 8/57 images and a picture of some guy's gal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=228949811 my removal of the images in the gallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228949811 Asher196's revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228950202 My second removal of these image

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228952105 The second revert from Asher196 with a comment asking me not to make "major changes without consensus"

That was one anchor that got attached to my foot when it came to that article. I mean honestly was 8/57 images so horrible or unreasonable to remove? I know i sound like a broken record or something but why was i the only one being focused on in the charge of edit warring?

I mean Dreadstar must have posted 50+ diffs showing some kind of crime i committed, yet he wouldn't even attempt to look for the diffs, which were easier to find back then, that showed Asher's edit waring with me.

Am i so wrong in asking that if a person can take the time to get those diffs against one person, that they can look for some more?

Then I am the only one who gets a noose around my neck when it came to the gallery again.

Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke.

I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship.

I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship.

Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own.

Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Atom's Reverting it http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Me correcting him http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371

Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351

Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092

I gave Dreadstar all this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom.

Well after that little episode of calling Dreadstar bias, Rlevse came into my life. He protected the article which i had no problem at all with. He said take the time to discuss it with the other editors, which is did.

I continued to discuss the lede and gallery with my peers on that article, but somehow and i still don't 100% get how, i got blocked for breaking consensus and edit warring.

Now what was the point of blocking me for edit warring when the article was protected? Also how exactly can i go against consensus with in a article that is blocked?

I get accused of calling a fellow editor a liar, and both me and the editor i was accused of calling a liar told both Dreadstar and Rlevse that it wasn't the case.

I got accused of calling a fellow editor (Atom) disruptive. I had made a survey and he called me making it disruptive. I told him plain as day him saying that was disruptive.

I'm sorry if this seemed like a rant but do you see where i'm coming from?

Am i wrong for accusing the editors on that article of WP:OWN? Or being WP:TEND?

I accused Atom of both because he has said things like "I just want to block you from editing and hurting the article." and a combination of OWN and TEND when he says things like "I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure."

If you want i will look for those diffs but its easier to copy past then thumb through the history.

Maybe you can see now why i distrust Dreadstar and Rlevse and wish that they not contact me or get involved with me.

I just thought you should know that little bit of drama in the last month. Keep up the good work cheers.Yami (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for the nice things you wrote about me on the RfB. My take on dispute resolution is as follows. There's no consensus for the Crats as a team to act in this way. However, many of them are skilled as individuals. I'd humbly say that I have some abilities in this area; as well as the Copa del Rey example listed in the RfB, and a host of little niggles I've solved that aren't worth listing, I've been working on a formal Mediation (currently stalled) on Contras. But I come back to my discomfort over using the Crats as a group. If consensus were that they should have a role, I'd happily go along with it. But I could only interpret the question in the light of current consensus and policy, which I did. Anyway, I owe you a debt of gratitude for that horrendous Q8: I no longer have any reservations at all about whether I can make a good Crat; I know I can do a good job if given the chance, even if not everyone will agree with my decisions. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

banned

I'm not actually banned you know - I'm just blocked forever - belive it or not there is a difference I was surprised to find that one out). Someone tried for a community ban but it was opposed. --87.114.7.44 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly true. There was an attempt to suggest that Fd be unblocked, when User:Allemandtando was unmasked, and it went down in flames. There was a prior attempt to create a community ban through discussion at AN/I, as I recall, and there was one admin who refused to support it. I've heard the definition of community ban be that no admin is willing to unblock. That's obviously true at this point. There was some negotiation attempted, and I tried to support it, but he, apparently, will not tolerate anything that leaves him visible.

In any case, MBisanz, you blocked the IP Fred was using for a week. That's ineffective in stopping him, because he just reboots and acquires another IP in the 81.112-87.115 range within minutes. A day should be sufficient if you are going to do it, not sure if it is worth it. (The risk of blocking an innocent user is low, but not zero.) It occurred to me that there would be a more effective way of dealing with his edits, and those of people like him, but it would require some thought. By the way, he continued vandalism to my Talk page, when it went off protection briefly, and did what he could, before that, to vandalise a self-RfC I've created in my user space. Ironically, I invited him to participate, I think he might have something to say of value, but I think he has another agenda. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use my name as a excuse to spam your sham RFC. You just don't get it - nobody wants to be involved in such a rigged process. And there isn't an effective way to do with my edits - because there doesn't need to be - my main account has over 30,000 and is a well respect editor. My secondary account has about 10,000 edits and although not so well known is a well respected policy maker. --87.112.53.52 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Make a report to WP:ABUSE, Ill handle it personally   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who were you suggesting make a report, Prom3th3an? About what?

Is Fredrick day lying? He's lied so much.... I've identified several possible accounts as possibly what he is talking about, but so far evidence hasn't been developed or nailed down sufficiently to warrant -- or allow -- any specific mention. It does not depend on checkuser: the user relies upon multiple simultaneous logins using different ISPs. Article overlap is avoided. "Well respected policy maker." Wouldn't that be a matter for concern, if this is true? A "well respected policy maker" actually believes in vandalism against editors, disruption, and pure venom. It might explain some things.

As to my self-RfC, it's a preliminary process. If nobody gets involved, I simply go to the next step in WP:DR. This is an opportunity to avoid disruption, if it fails, the only one who has wasted time is me, and Fredrick day with his continued vandalism, a minor annoyance. The time he spends vandalising me is time taken from other damage, and it provides one more possible linkage to the puppet master. He's not perfect, he makes mistakes, the more edits, the more possible a slip. --Abd (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin Incident

Patience is a virtue, also, you wont be the one to block steve crossin as the situation is clearly being handled by ArbCom and is beyond any administrators discression. when they get enouigh views arbcom will act.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN

Hiya! Matt, can you remove the rather large box and just leave the text? I appreciate your opinion here, and agree that the concerns needed to be raised, but the large box does look a tad attention seeking or something. Ta! Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So I see. No worries my man, it just looked a bit jarring. Again, glad you brought up the subject as it needs to be reviewed. Hoping you're well. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But I like boxes :-( --Deskana (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikimania2007logo.gif

I remember formally ceding the rights to the wikimedia foundation, but I don't know exactly how the image is licensed. You may want to contact samuel klein? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted when consensus was to keep it

The Chillenden windmill image has been deleted although the consensus was to keep it. Thougt you might want to comment as the issue has been raised at ANI. The Bald One 10:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Page protection patrol

you nominated Misplaced Pages:Page protection patrol for deletion a while ago. it was kept, but the main person supporting it and the person that created it was banned. that project looks to be dead. i tried to re-nominate it, but the normal templates didn't work. --Buridan (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Own noticeboards and now own template!

When it gets to the stage of needing a template to keep track of the different subpages... Not sure whether to be dismayed at that or impressed! Thanks for creating that. I would suggest linking the arbitration cases, but that would be over-the-top and isn't AN/ANI stuff anyway. It's got me wondering though. If I linked all the ANI threads I'd participated in, and created a box like that, how long would it be? I guess the difference is between participating in a thread and having a thread started about you (though I could link the ones I started). The real problem is that a very productive editor using bot tools or automated tools or (as now) semi-automated tools, even slightly off-kilter will get lots of complaints. There are other bot and Twinkle/AWB editors that do similar or higher volumes, with less complaints though. There should be a way to invoke a "too many complaints" clause in bot policy (with someone fairly judging the complaints) followed by a request for further testing/discussion and/or throttling back the volume of work done to reduce the frequency of complaints. Or, even simpler, require one issue to be dealt with (not simply discussed and rejected out-of-hand) before more work is done. I'm also thinking: why am I getting drawn back into all this! :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Agama Yoga Deletion by Keeper

Dear Friend, i am sorry if it takes me time to respond my work keeps me away from editing at the moment. This Tuesday or wednesday i will email-user you all the refferences i have. Tomeryogi (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay again. but i was unable to upload the refferences as images, how may i send them to you directly ? Tomeryogi (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/MBisanz with your email address and I will respond so you can send me the files. MBisanz 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Typo

Why did you think this was moribund? As far as I know there are lots of people quietly fixing typos. PamD (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MoP and Dereks1X

As you might've noticed, MoP has been gone for months and is thus unlikely to respond to your inquiry. I'd recommend letting things be with Oprahwasontv unless he gives you a reason to block him. He's not exactly active, anyhow. He just recently posted to MoP's talk in response to something MoP had said in February. He was gone 6 months. PS- I sent you an e-mail a few weeks ago. Regards, Enigma 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not gone for 6 months. I was merely fed up with Misplaced Pages. Why help them when rude people and POV pushers are so mean? Some people are using it to campaign for politicians. This is bad for Misplaced Pages, no better than companies who promote themselves. I am still fed up with Misplaced Pages and will not waste my time editing except for occasionally and for just a day ro two at a time. What got me active this time was an AN thread about a POV pusher where the complainer got blocked, not the POV pusher. I say both of them should have been blocked. Oprahwasontv (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Skipped?

When I wrote that answer, it was intended to deal with editorial issues, i.e. things having to do with articles. It wasn't my intent to skip over it and I don't mind addressing it; I expected someone to bring it up anyway. Everyking (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments about that matter that were very mistaken, and I'm actually quite embarrassed by them now. In my defense, we were all pretty much in the dark about what was really going on at that time. Everyking (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really, some of us were involved at a very detailed level on that situation and others knew well enough to avoid it, quite frankly I'm highly concerned how you would handle a situation such as a block of a pro-pedophilia advocate if you had the bit in light of your prior positions. MBisanz 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the depths and severity of it were not generally known. Keep in mind that my comments on WR are sometimes just meant to raise ideas for discussion; it doesn't always mean I'd stand behind it in the final analysis, after appropriate consideration (as I don't in this case). I never took unilateral decisions on controversial issues as an admin, and I would never do so in the future, so I assure you that you would have nothing to worry about anyway. Everyking (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators

MBisanz, regarding your recent revert of my edit, I would ask you to take a closer look at the history of the page. First, I don't think I was changing the meaning of the policy, I was just reorganizing the section, removing some duplication, and rewriting a bit for clarity. Second, the entire section is new, recently added by Hiding (talk · contribs), per a discussion that we have been having at the talkpage of WP:RECALLME, where I was the one that suggested moving the information to Misplaced Pages:Administrators, and Hiding agreed. I have worked on other sections of the page in the past, so my presence there is nothing new.

If you would like to copyedit my change, or if you have a disagreement over a specific phrase, by all means change it, but simply reverting the entire thing out of hand was a bit uncivil. And lastly, it is a bad idea to revert an editor, without leaving a comment on the talkpage explaining the revert. Please try to do better in the future, and assume good faith, and everything will go more smoothly. --Elonka 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, are you sure this is something you want to lecture someone about? Do you not see that COI is an issue due to current circumstances? I strongly suggest you recuse yourself, thank MBisanz for helping you to avoid the appearance of misconduct, and stop tossing "AGF" at people who suggest you may actually be doing something you shouldn't. AGF does NOT mean "ignore all the rules and never criticize", as I am certain you are aware. KillerChihuahua 16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded at MBisanz 16:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Misplaced Pages

Sorry MB, I'd explained myself on the template's talk page before I got pinged with your message. Will self-revert now. Neıl ☄ 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All done, would appreciate your input on Template talk:Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 08:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image upload

Thank you. It must be my computer that's preventing the upload button from doing anything for me. God knows why. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat

Hi Bisanz. Sorry anothe rproblem with an image deleter. See here. The editors explanation for tagging many images prolifically in the last few days (check his editing history) is because he was blocked previously and now semes to be retalitating as if to say "If mine was disallowed why isn't yours" so to speak which has resulted in him going on an image attacking binge. COuld you look into it thanks The Bald One 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he'll see it there though. He is obviously not blocked anymore, but rather seems to be upset with it and is taking it out on content rather than the ones who blocked him The Bald One 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Forums like...

About those contents, I just followed the criteria of the deletion of the image that I uploaded. If the criteria was wrong, then I was following wrong criteria, then it wasn't a reason to delete the image anyway. I don't want to vandalize or disrupt any content, it wasn't my intention.

About those forums you said, I putted at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Image:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg. Did I did it wrong?

Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An update

There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia 05:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TheKohser

Stay off TheKohser's talk page. In fact, just stay away from him all together. You're being disruptive. --Duk 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya know Duk, you might read over our outing policy before rushing to defend indef blocked harassers. MBisanz 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, Mbisanz, you've been going around shouting Thekohser's RL name all over the place here, then complaining when he does similar. I've already had to redact some of them and now I'm drawing your attention to it. The rules here apply across the board, as far as I'm concerned, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Personal info is personal info nor should one person's actions should not govern yours - Alison 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I would have thought Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 18 indicates Greg has given his identity publicly on WP, something the other users in question have not done. MBisanz 00:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the outing issue, that edit was nothing short of trolling. Viridae 00:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it was uncalled for. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not mentioning the fact he identified himself for the wikimedia board elections. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the Kohser out someone? I thought he only used RL names that were well known and self-identified, such as Durova and JzG. Regardless, after the oversite he dutifully removed whatever other names he could find. Also, the discussion on that page was experiencing some good moments until you (MBisanz) came there and started acting like a child. Please don't return. --Duk 00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning RL names that are not publicly available is a no-no here. It's all part of the rules. I don't care whether Thekohser does it or Mbisanz does it - it's a matter of showing mutual respect. Either way, I often get to cleanup the fallout from these things so please, folks, don't do that - Alison 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison for cleaning up TheKohser's edit quietly and without complaint, and yes I'm aware of the outing policy. But please consider that TheKohser followed your lead and removed whatever other names that were left on the page. I've even found myself accidentally using TheKohser's real name here - it's certainly not intentional. --Duk 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh he did, yes. I saw that, and it was one I missed. Well done, indeed. So yes, if he's willing to at least try to abide by the rules here, then it's only fair that others do too. Right? :) Hence my comment - Alison 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing MBisanz; I'm not 'rushing to defend' an indef blocked user, I'm trying to get a dialog going. Just because he's banned doesn't mean that you can go to his page and poke him with a stick. I'm tired of watching pompous admins creating the very 'Enemies of the Wiki' that they complain about with their childish behavior. TheKohser has some legitimate complaints that deserve to be heard - don't confuse that with 'rushing to defend'. --Duk 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Duk-you are up to this Kohs thing to your eyeballs. You know perfectly well you shouldn't be taking admin actions against anyone in this case, yet you try to ban MBisanz from his talk page. If you're going to ban anyone, ban yourself, Duk. As for the outing issue, I make no comment, yet.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. The trolling messagebox was completely out of order - Alison 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The messagebox was probably over the line, although I did not like Thekohser's edit before that calling me a "trolly troll", but I was wrong to retaliate. MBisanz 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing Sceptre's RfC from the main RfC page

Hi. I noticed you asked for someone uninvolved to take a look at this. That's me: uninvolved. I think the RfC should be re-listed on the main RfC page: I don't see any reason to remove it, and Ncmvocalist's edit summary doesn't help—like you, I can't find any AN discussion about it. I've asked Ncmvocalist for his reason and will wait for a while for him to respond and explain. If he doesn't do that shortly, I'll restore it. After all, he removed it without giving a comprehensible reason (although I assume he tried to provide an informative edit summary; there just wasn't room for one). Regards, Bishonen | talk 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Articles by User:Martintaylor757

Hello again, MBisanz ... Please take a look at this list ... I may need a hand with the articles created in a single marathon session by this editor ... the "root" article is Freefall Productions, to which all of the others need to be wikilinked.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)}

FYI, I've expanded the list, as now they are creating articles about the people mentioned in association with the films ... <Heavy sigh!> — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done ... NawlinWiki took care of them! :-) — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Incentive to edit

Just a side point from a recent discussion - you said "Misplaced Pages isn't about giving you an incentive to edit, it is about a forum where individuals voluntarily and collaboratively participate to create free knowledge." Indeed that is true to some extent, but people would not voluntarily and collaboratively participate if there was not some value to them in doing it. People take pride in their contributions, some see it as a learning opportunity where they start with something they're interested in and not only get to learn about it but share it with the world. Some incentives are competitive in nature - there's no denying, to take one example, that the Australian politics editors have seen the Canadian effort in the same area and have found our own historical progress somewhat wanting, and that's provided something of a drive to fill out and catch up. And of course there's the incentive to squash attempts to push left- and right-wing agendas which are so often engaged on Misplaced Pages with academic sources. That's sort of an incentive to make Misplaced Pages an agenda-free place where the power of facts squash the art of hyperbole - something that rarely happens in the real world. (And yes, the use of hyperbole in the previous sentence was deliberate. :)) So yes, there is a voluntary contribution, but absent of incentives (99% of which are intrinsic or internalised, but gain their value from both the community interaction and the publishing aspect) there isn't really much point in editing. No more proof need be seen of that than the success of Misplaced Pages as against many less-well-read blogs, community news sites and the like where the incentive isn't there and contributions ultimately dry up. Orderinchaos 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have qualified that statement a bit more to read that Misplaced Pages isn't about changing to give a specific individual an incentive to edit. We all edit because we are we have some incentive, personal growth, spreading free culture, competing with each other, etc, but as a community we don't change our incentives at the turn of a dime for a single individual, which is the point I was trying to get across. MBisanz 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting moderation

Thank you for doing this. I need to go to sleep now (it is late in my timezone), so I leave this matter in your capable hands. — OranL (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

help with other editor

hello there, I am hoping you can assist me, my younger sister quit editing wikipedia about one year ago, another editor and his various socks were following her around from article to article making her life miserable and leaving weird and abusive messages on her talk page, she tried to create another account to escape this and then he had her accused of "sock puppetry" to get her account banned. Most editors involved in this vote have left the project. To make a long story short she wants nothing to do with this anymore and got her account "vanished" User Precious Roy and Ward keep bothering her and bring back information that was deleted by Flo: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:216.240.7.14&diff=234168217&oldid=234154700

Roy and Ward are obviously the same person and Roy brags on his user page that he is a sock puppet and has left the building. He did not go far as he continues to bother her and the articles she created. This is so weird. Is there anything to be done? Back in May Ward accused another user of being my sister. This is crazy as the ip was coming from "Cox Communications" we don't even have that ip here in Canada! I believe he made this false accusation so that my sister's account could be "unvanished" as it seems to annoy this user (why ..I don't know!) that she vanished. Why should he care?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Precious_Roy

Is there anything to be done to stop all of this, it is aggrevating!

Greengables25 (talk)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengables25 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

...tried to resolve..?

Please get yourself out of that section that says "users who tried to resolve the dispute". Some others did, and I will acknowledge that. You didn't. I cannot remember any involvement from you other than making uninformed arguments on IfD (which were part of the issue, not attempts at solving it), and a nasty little attempt at piling on at AN with a piece of criticism that was (a) completely unrelated to the question, and (b) had been conclusively discussed between us in private before you saw fit to bring it up again.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, this is it? Now, let me ask you: did we or did we not discuss the issue of the Korean newbie before you brought it up? Did I or did I not give you an explanation for that incident? Was there a good reason for you to let the matter rest on IRC but then all of a sudden bring it out again in that public discussion? Can you imagine any reason I should, after this, accept your intervention as a good-faith attempt at solving issues? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC and I'm not wasting the edit) Personally I'd consider a throwaway comment at an admin board as not being an attempt at dispute resolution for certifying an RFC. Was there any actual conversation on a talk page anywhere? Why not just move yourself to endorsing the statement if that's the way you feel. Spartaz 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am writing up at the moment, certification struck for now. MBisanz 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Spartaz 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Outside_view_by_MBisanz MBisanz 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That diff was just that. Did you read the context of that edit at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was someone asking an image question who was too new to know how to post to your page, and you reverted them with a nasty edit sum. MBisanz 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, read. Read. . Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And you've still not answered my question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is an interesting read, I thought we encouraged people to create free replacements when possible to avoid using copyrighted images. MBisanz 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This just goes to confirm my opinion about your knowledgeability in matters of non-free content. But you still haven't retracted your nonsensical accusation. Please remove it from the RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And you still haven't answered my question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You gave me an explanation in private, which I obviously won't reprint here, but I was unsatisfied with it, didn't want to continue to argue, and hoped it was just a standalone incident, events since then seem to indicate otherwise. MBisanz 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You want a serious discussion about WP:BITE? Okay, here goes. WP:BITE is not a suicide pact. It is a means of protecting good-faith newcomers who make their various harmless mistakes but have a potential of becoming useful contributors. Its purpose is not to protect those who have no such potential at all. The person in question knew next to no English, couldn't write a single sentence in English, and all he was here to do was to beg us: please write everything according to my nation's POV, I know no other POV, so it must be the right one. I wasn't rude to that person, I didn't insult him, I apologised for removing his posts, and then I just told him, in simple, neutral words, that this wasn't the right place for him. He never posted again. And that was the right result. This guy may have been the nicest person in the world, but he wouldn't have become a constructive contributor in a thousand years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use

An Admin keeps removing images saying the images don't meet the fair-use guidelines. The images in question can't be replaced by free use.

ATM I'm without a computer ATM as my power supply unit failed and I'm currently using my mothers computer which is slow and hard to read the screen. Bidgee (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This was the other image used Image:National Nine News Darwin opener.pngOpening of National Nine News Darwin. Bidgee (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)