Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 20 March 2009

Archives

6/06-3/07 4/07-7/07 8/07-11/07 11/07-12/07 1/08-2/08 2/08-4/08 4/08-6/08 6/08-9/08 9/08-11/08 11/08-3-03

Image resizing

Of the images I've resized, the vast majority of the ones I've handled have not been tagged by a bot, and the vast majority of those that have been tagged have been properly tagged - they are, in fact, missing source or fair-use information. Anything that DOES have the proper information shouldn't be deleted, since the proper procedure is to check the image page to make sure that the image was properly tagged. Considering the MASSIVE backlog involved with the improperly sized fair-use images that stretches back for months - I must have resized close to 1,000 images myself in the last few days, and I've barely put a dent in it - and the checks involved before an image would be deleted, I really don't think it's as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. --fuzzy510 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, you are more than welcome to go through and check the tagged images much in the same way you must have done to find the couple that you refer to. As it is, going through the backlog will take me about a month at the pace I'm able to work at, and that's without checking how the fair-use is documented. I agree that you have a legitimate concern, but a more reasonable course of action would be to bring this up with the operators of the bots which are missing the legitimately tagged images or the administrators who are deleting images which are not supposed to be deleted. To ask me to check every image, especially when I've seen this to affect about 1 out of every few hundred images which I've dealt with, and when I have thousands more to deal with at this stage, is not reasonable to me. Please do not discuss this with me any further. --fuzzy510 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. And the bot-runners say, "It's not my fault the bot can't read English, it's up to someone else to put it in a format my bot can read. I can't be bothered. I'm just here to run my bot." Meanwhile information and images are unnecessarily removed from Misplaced Pages, while people treat it as, basically, an online video game. Dekkappai (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Twins again

Checked out the twins again after your message - I have avoided even looking at the A&M stuff lately - it brings a mixture of annoyance and hilarity to read most of it. I was surprised to see they're still there. And that people are still so determined to kill the page. But I guess they need a hobby too, although a less destructive and time-wasting one would be preferable. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yumika

Hi, my ISP seems to have been having some problems lately so my internet access has been spotty. Seems to be fixed for now. Looks like you've been busy on Yumika - good work. This is going to be a busy week coming up for me but I'll try to make some time for "play-work" as well and see if I can add to the article. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

While scrupulously avoiding any implied invitation for comment or participation, it crosses my mind that you may want to follow whatever unfolds at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration in a complaint captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". If this uninvited observation is unwelcome, or if you construe it as unhelpful in any way, please allow me to apologize for inappropriate temerity. In deleting this message from your talk page, I hope you will then forgive what would have been seen as a regrettably flawed sense of good judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)