Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walton One (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 28 July 2007 (→Editing other people's signatures: - deja vu). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Tony Sidaway/OTRS review

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Example images in Non-nude photography

Thanks for your message. However, I don't think it's correct to pre-emptively delete images (or anything else) based on "doubts" or personal opinions. That's why we have policy and procedure. I've asked people to elucidate their concerns in the IfD, and the response has been vague handwaving about "ethical concerns" or "legal issues", but no one seems to be able to demonstrate a relevant Misplaced Pages policy or specific legal doctrine. The assertions of the provenance and copyright release by the uploader are entitled to a presumption of validity, unless there is actual evidence (as opposed to mere suspicion or "doubts") otherwise. What you refer to as "the age of the partially clothed subjects" does not, so far as I know, present any particular legal issues, at least not in the U.S. jurisdictions I am familiar with; if you disagree, by all means please make a case for it. Otherwise, there's no compelling reasons at all to remove the images from the article or prematurely close the IfD. --MCB 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh what bollocks. They're of unknown age, they are partially clothed with intent to titillate, they look under-aged, we don't know where the photographs came from and if they're minors we have no parental consent. You call that handwaving? Don't be so bloody silly. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Count me among the numerous "bloody silly" editors spouting "bollocks" who believe your deletion was rash, premature and uncalled for, not to mention these condescending replies of yours that insult, belittle, and put down other editors for daring to disagree with you. wikipediatrix 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete those pictures. I called MCB bloody silly for falsely claiming that the only reasons for deletion had been "handwaving". --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, it's Jimbo Wales whose deletion was "rash, premature and uncalled for"! His talk page is here, if you want to take it up with him. :-) ElinorD (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony cant delete pages, Jimbo can and as mostly he does he has acted sensibly and with the best intentions of the project, SqueakBox 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair I did get somebody else to delete them first time around. ;) --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good! Same old Tony then, SqueakBox 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say...

Thank you for working so diligently to protect both the integrity of Misplaced Pages and the civil rights of the girls in those photos. Misplaced Pages could seriously burn if they are kept, and it's a miracle no media organization or WikiTruth-type site caught wind of them before. VanTucky 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second VanTucky's comment above. It's not often you and I have agreed on anything, but on that issue I completely agreed with your comments. It would have been very worrying if we'd kept photos like that on Misplaced Pages, uploaded by a contributor we know little about, and with no evidence that the subjects of the photos were adults or that they had given permission for the use of their photos. Caution is always right in these circumstances. Walton 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pet 2001 keyboard commodore ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pet 2001 keyboard commodore ca.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Now tagged as non-free promotional. --Tony Sidaway 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Amy Mihaljevic

The unsolved Amy Mihaljevic case is historic and important and should not be considered for deletion. This case is getting a lot of attention, finally, after 18 years. Police have started taking DNA samples from suspects. The more info we have out there, the better chance there is that someone will come forward with that missing piece of the puzzle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2007.

This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box. See What Misplaced Pages is not. Please use your blog or myspace or something. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing images cleanly

Hi Tony, you seem to be online at the moment. I'm working my way through a category of fair use images to be deleted because they're missing a rationale. I was about to delete one, but couldn't work out how to remove it from the article without leaving bits of coding behind. The article is List of Army Wives episodes, and it's the second image. Have you any idea how to remove it? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the whole lot of them. We don't normally allow that many non-free images on an article. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was a bit tempted to do that as well. But it's complicated removing images when there are tables and columns involved. ElinorD (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's signatures

Don't do this again. You are free to reformat your talk page any way you like, but it is obnoxious to be editing people's comments on other talk pages. You are already aware of this, and since that RFC rules (which are enforced) have been enacted to reign in the silliness that predominated at that time. You do not have any power to enforce your tastes beyond that.

If you have a problem with someone's sig, you have a number of avenues open to you.

• Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures is a reasonable place to propose more stringent restrictions on signatures.
• You can discuss a user's sig with them on their talk page.
• You can open an RFC, either on the subject in general or on a particular user's sig.

All of these are preferable to and less disruptive than editing someone's comments. Please exercise these options when you feel someone's signature is inappropriate. - A Man In Black 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't stop editing discussions and discussion pages, as and when it becomes necessary, to improve my ability (and that of other editors) to follow the discussion without wading through lines and lines of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you edit someone's signature over their objections on any page but your talk page, I will block you for disruption. - A Man In Black 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To do that, first you will have to find me editing disruptively. Don't make thuggish and vindictive threats. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find them thuggish or vindictive. Please exercise one of the avenues of communication open to you in the future. - A Man In Black 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need permission to make an edit on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not, I find it hard when people claim that users such as you or I would need permission, SqueakBox 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I will speak. People are right to be angry with Tony over his signature editing, Tony is right to complain that stylish signatures clutter the edit box, however the message no one seems to be getting is that signatures are no big deal. In fact, they're not even deals. They're name markers. Let's all chill out, okay? MessedRocker (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have we all had this discussion about 15 times before? Personally, when the same thing happened to me - - I took the simplest path, and redesigned my signature to an acceptably utilitarian length. Walton 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)