This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bastique (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 1 September 2006 (→Blocked for a week). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:36, 1 September 2006 by Bastique (talk | contribs) (→Blocked for a week)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.
If you systematically (or otherwise) remove my courteous and respectful comments from your talk page (like so and like so)
but intend to post on my talk page, be prepared for me to move your comments to your talk page and respond there.
Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04
Admin?
Hi, I notice you' re a really active Wikipedian. I was wondering if you would like to be nominated for adminship by me; seems you' d be a good one. (crazytales56297 posting anon from 69.214.31.217) 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after login ~ c. tales 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
- And FWIW I would still support - why not?--Arktos 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah - I wouldn't hold blocks against anyone necessarily. I would want to know do they understand policy and procedures. I guess you need to holler for help quicker - many are willing to assist and would urge you to behave like a good wikipedian - taking the lift and not dressing up! Even though it might be slower - a more certain way to the top :-)--Arktos 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well not all of us are here 24/7 and some of us give up reading AN/I and PAIN from time to time because we get bruised easily. I would not regard a request for help on my talk page as spam and I am sure I am not alone. Feel free to ask me next time if others don't jump to. Don't compromise policy - it often helps to have a 2nd opinion which is the underlying basis for much of those policies anyway.--Arktos 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- You asked where did I compromise policy? - I would avoid 3 reverts even in the pursuit of vandalism unless it is so obviously blatant that nobody but nobody is going to dispute it - eg inserting gratuitous expletive into another wise innocent article by anons. Dealing with registered users and tags is verging into content disputes. As per WP:3RR - Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct. Even if you vary content of reversions, edit warring with an individual should be avoided. My two cents and I am sure I don't always follow my own advice!--Arktos 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well not all of us are here 24/7 and some of us give up reading AN/I and PAIN from time to time because we get bruised easily. I would not regard a request for help on my talk page as spam and I am sure I am not alone. Feel free to ask me next time if others don't jump to. Don't compromise policy - it often helps to have a 2nd opinion which is the underlying basis for much of those policies anyway.--Arktos 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah - I wouldn't hold blocks against anyone necessarily. I would want to know do they understand policy and procedures. I guess you need to holler for help quicker - many are willing to assist and would urge you to behave like a good wikipedian - taking the lift and not dressing up! Even though it might be slower - a more certain way to the top :-)--Arktos 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I no longer remember why the religious display thing was relevant...
... but yes, those do look like religious displays. If I said they weren't, I was wrong. What did this connect to? BYT 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Islamophobia AfD
I "fixed" it wrong. M'bad. :x Thanks for catching that, though. Luna Santin 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Islamophobia poll
As BrandonYusufToropov said, "a published Gallup poll about attitudes toward Muslims constitutes "original research" in an article about attitudes toward Muslims? In what universe?".
Your argument here is ridiculous, and I'm going to ask for an admin to block you if you don't stop trying to vandalize the article by removing important and relevant information.
Islamophobia is exactly the same thing as anti-Muslim sentiment; in fact "anti-Muslim" redirects to Islamophobia.
So why do you insist on removing a valuable poll result about anti-Muslim sentiment from an article about anti-Muslim sentiment? Do you have some agenda here?
Deuterium 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be necessary to scientifically "prove" that the poll is relevant to the article. It's obvious to virtually everyone, as the consensus seems to be to keep the poll. If you want a reference that explicitly describes the poll's findings as evidence of Islamophobia to your standards, go ahead and find one, but don't threaten to remove the poll entirely because there isn't one yet. Deuterium 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You would probably be interested in this. Tewfik 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Embrace weasel words
Well, quite a flurry of motions today. First off-- I'm sorry you disagree with Embrace Weasel Words-- I think it makes a good point, but even if you don't, there are many essays in the Misplaced Pages space that are controversial-- that's why they're essays, rather than guidelines or policies. . Regarding the image on that page-- thank you for spotting in incorrect link. I had considered a couple different potential weasel images before settling on it. Hopefully this resolved the copyright concerns about that image-- if not, let me know (and re-add the relevant templates). --Alecmconroy 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- The atribution is in the form of the link to the webpage in which it was downloaded from. If you look at many other CC attribution images, on wikipedia and elsewhere, you'll find his form of attribtion is quite common. If you would like to add more specific attribution information, by all mean, you may add whatever other relevant information was uploaded to flickr by the original author. --Alecmconroy 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Embrace weasel words. Look forward to seeing your response. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
E.D. references
Do you just systemically hunt down anything that even references that site? Your bias (which you claimed to have none of/hollow claims of complete neutrality during the old AfD) are now even more humorous. rootology (T) 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hardly. I had Tony's page on my watchlist from interactions the past couple days, and I saw your name and remembered that you were just the guy that ran that AfD. But when I scanned his Talk page I saw you also had somehow found the Talk page thing (which was news to me). It was just an observation that you appeared to be searching out active references to the ED site, based on these two actions. In regards to your Troll comment, thanks for that. I begin to grow mighty tired of a small irrelevant clique of angsty users tossing that around like a tennis ball. rootology (T) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Re AOL vandal
Hi Scott! Thanks for letting me know. I'll reduce the block to 24h as i already s-protected the article. Cheers -- Szvest 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No "fair use" rationale
That image is on the Wikimedia Commons. The Commons do not allow for "fair use" rationale. You'd do well to revert Mel Gibson in good faith rather than editing without knowledge of what you are doing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know what image you are talking about being on the commons, however, it is irrelevant if it is on the commons or not. Fair Use rationale or a similar free use justification is required on wikipedia. As for reverting in good faith, I did revert in good faith. As for knowing what I am doing, I know what I am doing. I suspect that you feel that your picture should remain. It is an awful picture and other pictures will do much better and can be supplied under fair use rationale. --Blue Tie 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This edit was what I was suggesting you revert (where you reverted a Commons image back into the article). I've just done so because the image you reverted to wasn't a "free" image. The Commons only host "free" images not images that qualify for "fair use". The reason images of Mel Gibson are being deleted is because they aren't free and don't qualify for fair use. Fair use is only applicable when there is no "free" alternative image. At this point there is a "free" alternative that shows what Mel Gibson looks like and that is his booking photo. In an attempt to find a more agreeable image to show what he looks like I found the sketch of him and put that on the article. Perhaps you can source a freely licenseable image of him?
- I have some bad news for you. The image you uploaded is a derivative image of a Touchstone Pictures copyrighted image. According to copyright law, derivative works must be authorized by the copyright holder. If this one is not so authorized and is not placed on the page under the auspices of fair use, it should be deleted. Since you have been deleting the other images, I think its fair that you delete this one too. --Blue Tie 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As you've not indicated which image your discussing that I've uploaded I recommend that you tag it for deletion or mark it with a tag that corresponds to disputing fair use. (→Netscott) 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not really know how to do that. But the image is the one on Mel Gibson.--Blue Tie 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand drawings to be derivative works based upon Derivative work where it says that A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version." It also says: The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works. This concept also protects an artist from having his/her original work reproduced in a different media by another artist, without the consent of the first artist and The correct specific legal term 'derivative works' is only for a copyright permitted or licensed secondary 'work'. Any uncopyrighted, unauthorized or unlicensed secondary properties are called 'copies'. 'Copies' are not legally protected from the original copyright owners in copyright infringement suits. (technically this is a copy, not a derivative work and hence it is a total violation of copyright).--Blue Tie 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted Mel Gibson's publicist and requested a released picture for free distribution. Whether that will get attention or not, I do not know. But, I think that under the circumstances, a fair use of a widely released publicity photo would be reasonable.--Blue Tie 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since all an image on the Mel Gibson article has to do is show what he looks like any images used for that purpose will not qualify for "fair use" because his booking photo does in fact show what he looks like. (→Netscott) 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I do not know how the requirement for an image to show what he looks negates the "Fair Use" qualtification for a picture. 2. I do not know how it affects the fair use qualification of that booking photo in particular. 3. But per wikipedia policy and Jimbo articles are to avoid negative -- to the point of deleting information rather than keeping it in. 4. That image only shows what he looks like when he is inebriated. That does not fit the critieral of showing what he looks like generally. It is too specific an instance. It would be just as if the picture showing him painted in wode were used as an example of his countenance.. it would not be right. --Blue Tie 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
edit war on 3RR page
I've blocked you for 12h for this William M. Connolley 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) If you follow the diffs here you'll see that I was changing my content as I edited. How is that an edit war? (→Netscott) 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Essentially I was reverting edits that were geared to have me falsely blocked. (→Netscott) 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- My edits were to revert "Changing others' commentary" vandalism. Please review. (→Netscott) 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I documented what I was doing in good faith. (→Netscott) 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree not to further edit on the 3RR page relative to this matter. May I be unblocked? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I documented what I was doing in good faith. (→Netscott) 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- My edits were to revert "Changing others' commentary" vandalism. Please review. (→Netscott) 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think its better that you sit it out. Not long now William M. Connolley 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the point you made on WP:AN/I. Have discussed with the editor and the 2nd listing is being removed :-) --Arktos 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- We all feel like quitting from time to time - I am sure you will get over it. Therapy is to get back to editing - preferably non-contentious articles, I recommend geography, obscure Greek goddesses or paddle steamers :-) - Otherwise I reiterate my advice to stick closely to 3 reverts and no more except for unmistakeably batant vandalism - then nobody can get at you. Sometimes on WP:AN/I they seem to ignore real issues and all want to get stuck into something apparently unconstructive to my mind. If no prompt action from an alert there, give some of the admins you know (and you know lots based on this talk page so one of them is likely to be awake and editing) a hoy to get more than one editor involved in the reversions and giving you the benefit of a 2nd opinion. Regards--Arktos 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Deuterium
You're welcome. He's about to be blocked, I'm thinking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Breakfast and barnstar
That's quite a couple of days you've been having, Scott. Here's to regrouping, relaxing over a nutritious breakfast of all that's best at the Commons, and knowing people appreciate your work. For your valiant efforts to keep difficult articles balanced and NPOV, you are hereby awarded Bishonen's prestigious Blondin Trophy or Tightrope Award, a rare and coveted honor. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC).
You're the man!
Thanks for pointing out that I that didn't really break 3rr. :) BhaiSaab 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Admin recall
Hi Netscott, have you seen this: Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall/Archive2#Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure. --HResearcher 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing information from Anti-Muslim sentiment
Hello, I was just wondering why you removed the following sections from the anti-Muslim sentiment page. I don't believe removing information simply because it is mentioned on another page (Islamophobia) is a good reason to do so, nor is it supported by policy.
- An earlier poll of Americans, commissioned by CAIR, suggested that one in four Americans believe Muslims value human life less than others and teach their children to hate.
- In 2006 the Sunday Herald Sun commissioned a Gallup Poll, published on July 30, which reported that four in ten of those Australians surveyed "believe Islam is a threat to our way of life" and One in three people are more fearful of Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
- Poll reveals US Islamophobia - October 05, 2004.
- Islamophobia and imperialist wars - Green left Weekly. August 9, 2006
Deuterium 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Deuterium 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
user:SirIsaacBrock
hi, I'm having a hell of a time trying to list SirIsaacBrock's sockpuppet User:What123 at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. can you take a look and see if you can fix the listing? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That'll likely not be necessary. Let User:JzG have a look (or another admin on the AN post). There is no doubt about this being a sockpuppet. (→Netscott) 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Germen
- Is his username actually blocked? --Irishpunktom\ 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you can do a checkuser less they are actually banned.. I'll ask AE. --Irishpunktom\ 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mizan
I created an article on Mizan for quick reference. Maybe it'll help someday. TruthSpreader 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
3RR warning
You have violated 3RR at New anti-Semitism and may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself. The rule says that any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, counts as a revert. It need not involve a straightforward revert and need not involve the same material. Please review WP:3RR very carefully. SlimVirgin 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Netscott, please revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Thanks. Jayjg 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)- I will revert myself if demonstrated that I have over 3 reverts. (→Netscott) 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- If I have to demonstrate it, it will be on the WP:AN/3RR board, at which point it will be too late. Jayjg 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not planning on editing on the article anymore today so I'll not be further reverting. I'm not understanding either of your inclination to not abide by WP:NPOV and have the article read, "X says Y about Z". (→Netscott) 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Netscott, you're wasting everyone's time with this disruptive editing, 3RR violation, and now insisting we prove to you than you've violated it, whereas you could simply read the policy for yourself. If you do not revert yourself, you will be reported for the violation. SlimVirgin 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I'm not going to be editing the article any further I would recommend that you not spend your time filing a report as there's not need for prevention here. I addressed you on your talk page and you failed to respond to me. What is the problem with citing a reliable source saying that the image is demonstrative of Anti-Semitism for neutral point of view reasons? (→Netscott) 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Netscott, you're wasting everyone's time with this disruptive editing, 3RR violation, and now insisting we prove to you than you've violated it, whereas you could simply read the policy for yourself. If you do not revert yourself, you will be reported for the violation. SlimVirgin 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not planning on editing on the article anymore today so I'll not be further reverting. I'm not understanding either of your inclination to not abide by WP:NPOV and have the article read, "X says Y about Z". (→Netscott) 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- If I have to demonstrate it, it will be on the WP:AN/3RR board, at which point it will be too late. Jayjg 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will revert myself if demonstrated that I have over 3 reverts. (→Netscott) 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking but I can't help there. This content is out of my sphere. Anti-Zionism and Amti-Semetism seem often so closely linked that hard to distinguish. The poster does seem anti-zionist. Not sure that it means therefor it isn't anti-semetic - don't think that applies but perhaps if you wanted to make a clearer statement about anti-semetism as distinct from anti-zionism, a different lead photo might be a good idea. --Arktos 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not editing the article any further today is probably a good idea having counted the number of edits - they may or may not breach 3RR but calling on others to examine and comment on the issues is much better. I think perhaps in framing your arguments, you should call as much on the spirit of the policy as well as quoting the policy. I thought you had a good point - arguing to and fro about NOR isn't the point, a better caption would produce a more useful encyclopaedic contribution - no less no more and isn't a better wikipedia article what we are all on about?
- It is my own opinion that the article would be better served by an image that does not confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semetism - I disagree with SlimVirgin's stance that because some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's the same as anti-Semitism; some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's not the same as anti-Semitism. As such, it perfectly reflects the debate over the new anti-Semitism, which is why it's a perfect illustration for this article. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be a soapbox, therefore it shouldn't be trying to provoke debate and it should say things in such a way if possible that they are just facts, no more no less. If the image is reflecting the debate in the view of the editor, then its caption needs to say that. I also think that anti-Zionist is not necessarily the same as anti-Semetic - that is my POV. The article doesn't make a call (and nor should it) However, because there is debate about it, I think then it is not a good lead image and better further down the article even though aesthetically it is effective.--Arktos 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Chill
You do good work 99.999% of the time, which is a better track record than mine by a long shot...maybe just take a break for now? Turn the computer off.--MONGO 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyright law
I just got expert legal advice and I found out what I suspected all along- that in a picture of a public event like a protest that even if one poster is the only thing that can be seen, the only thing that is necessary is the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, the person who created the original poster is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Unblock
Netscott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have stated that I will not edit on this article anymore today hours ago (and I have not). My block is unfair as it is not preventative.
Decline reason:
As below.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(→Netscott) 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- My last edit at 16:01. I stated at 17:02 that I would not be editing further today on the report filed against me. (→Netscott) 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, I have not violated 3RR on new anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- In my block reasoning User:Blnguyen states that I have been blocked for "many previous 3RR blocks". I have been blocked exactly 4 times for 3RR. Regarding my last block User:William M. Connolley stated that "Its quite possible that I could have checked a bit more carefully" relative to blocking me. If we discount this last block (I in fact was blocked despite the fact that I was reverting vandalism) then I've only had a total of 3 blocks for 3RR. (→Netscott) 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, I have not violated 3RR on new anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reduced your block time to 24 hours. Please turn off the computer. Or if you can't stay away, upload some images at Commons: or help out there in some way. Maybe work at simple:. Just stay off of here for a while. Bastique▼ voir 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bon merci, c'est sympa de votre part mais honêtement je crois que mon bloquage n'était pas justifié tout d'abord. Je pense que Blnguyen n'a pas regarder les "diffs" et il m'a bloqué seulement sur les paroles des autres. Bon je vais me coucher. Merci encore. A plus! (→Netscott) 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Would folks kindly fully review the diffs found on the report filed against me. I did not violate 3RR. (→Netscott) 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding my last 3RR block the blocking adminstrator expressed hesitations about having blocked me due to the fact that I was reverting vandalism. (→Netscott) 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was engaged in a content dispute with editors User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg (who filed the report against me). Because of this section of WP:BP the 3RR report was worded in such a way as to make it appear as though I made more than 3 reverts. If folks would kindly fully review the diffs they will see this is true. (→Netscott) 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have looked it over and to be blunt, you're wrong. You've repeatedly violated 3RR and this is yet another example. Now be patient and wait your block out. JoshuaZ 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
TwoThree of the diffs show me editing content. The other 2 are reverts, I admit as much. Do you deny that is true? (→Netscott)- All the edits excepting the placement of the tag are the same edit in effect: making the image you object to not appear or adding your disclaimer to the image. All after it has been removed by other editors. JoshuaZ 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're talking about editing of a content nature are you not? (→Netscott) 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- All the edits excepting the placement of the tag are the same edit in effect: making the image you object to not appear or adding your disclaimer to the image. All after it has been removed by other editors. JoshuaZ 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have looked it over and to be blunt, you're wrong. You've repeatedly violated 3RR and this is yet another example. Now be patient and wait your block out. JoshuaZ 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was engaged in a content dispute with editors User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg (who filed the report against me). Because of this section of WP:BP the 3RR report was worded in such a way as to make it appear as though I made more than 3 reverts. If folks would kindly fully review the diffs they will see this is true. (→Netscott) 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding my last 3RR block the blocking adminstrator expressed hesitations about having blocked me due to the fact that I was reverting vandalism. (→Netscott) 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Would folks kindly fully review the diffs found on the report filed against me. I did not violate 3RR. (→Netscott) 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance but how does "making an image not appear" = "editing in a citation relative to the image"? (→Netscott) 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The key here is not that they are the same version but that they are all previous versions or are nearly identical in effect to what you had done previously. If someone keeps trying to push the same POV and finds a 100 different ways of writing it each slightly different, they'll still get blocked for disruption if they keep it up. Would you prefer I unblocked you and reblocked for something like "disruption, going over 3RR on many interpretations of it and tendentious editing" ?JoshuaZ 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm going to bed about now. To a certain extent given your partisanship in the new anti-Semitism content dispute you're probably not in the best position to be reviewing my case but thanks for taking the time to look at the diffs and comment here. (→Netscott) 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Have a goodnight Netscott. As for that dif indicating partisanship, I would note that a) that dif specificly states a lack of full agreement b) even if I had been in full agreement with Jay on what was correct that shouldn't invalidate an admins ability to make a decision if they have been by and large uninvolved. To use a more clearcut example, if someone kept chaning the date of American revolution to 1774 and they insisted they were correct, an admin could still block the user even if the admin happened to think that the correct date was 1776. JoshuaZ 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey man...
I just wanted to tell you that you have an awesome signature! —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks bro... took me awhile to come up with it. Yours is not too bad yourself. :-) (→Netscott) 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Clyde Wey blocked
This person's explanation that they have the name "Clyde Wey" is plausible. I would recommend unblocking and supervision (to verify that there's not impersonation of User:Cyde going on). (→Netscott) 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's nice. May I ask why you noticed this? JoshuaZ 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Re:Yes there was
I think it should be obvious from our prvious discussion that there was a reason I removed the tag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes your missing the fact that it in no way constitutes a copyvio. Furthermore your being quite passive aggresive about it. Your only evidence seems to be something that Jkelly said about it possibly being some sort of derivitive work, but he has made it clear that it isn't a copyright violation and can be used on wikipedia. Since wikipedia follows American law, and in American copyright law photos of public events can be photographed and published without the permission or even knowledge of the individual creators of the posters (even if their work is the focus of the picture). Of course you already know all of this since I told you, so I must wonder why you continue trying to make an issue out of this whole siuation, it is beginning to border on disruption.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that you do not think that there is a problem with the picture as far as copyvios and legal stuff goes but act as if there was because you believe you can blackmail other editors into not opposing a completely unrelated change really makes me wonder how I ever had any semblence of respect for you as an editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Every time you have brought up the supposed copyright issue you have later said something along the line of "I don't really want to do anything about the copyvio, what I actually take issue with is...". Any rational person would interpret that as an implicit statement that you will not pursue the copyvio in exchange for us not opposing your other change. That is very inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its your interpretation of npov, and its an interpretation that only a minority of other editors of that article share.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV and anti-Semitism
Greetings, I saw your comment on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view and thought that I'd just comment to you about that. The problem that you will encounter is the undue weight portion of NPOV. Is the alternative definition you're referring to significant (ie: known by a large population)? (→Netscott) 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. You're the only one that responded to my question. Anyway, I've read the NPOV policy many times before I post my message but I didn't get any answer. You're saying it's a problem of each side's weight. You're right, but if we consider that 250-300 million arab (according to Arab) think that Anti-semitism should be applied for arabs also, doesn't they deserve a lot (or a little) more than a single sentence showing that this usage is unacceptable? CG 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat's blocks
Don't you think I learned my lesson unblocking you! I left the decision to Kelly Martin. Cool Cat's block is almost up anyway, We're best of freinds, and it wouldn't be right for me to do it. Bastique▼ voir 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg
Hi, regarding your message on my talk. I guess it's now Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. I assume, without reading the article in question, that fair use rationale point 4 takes care of that. Besides, the page, where the counterexample is you pointed to, is a guideline not policy. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
WMD template
Glad you liked the change! --Fastfission 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
New article on a complex subject
A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:
--Ben Houston 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was because of how I was treated on NAS, primarily by SlimVirgin, that I moved on to other articles. Those are a better use of my time. I wouldn't spend too much time on the image -- it is pretty minor given how low quality that whole article is. I think that most competent people that read that article take away that it is written at a sophmoric level and its pretty partisan. I am (likely?) going to be contributing to the NAS article in the coming week with some major changes -- I'm going to suggest them and start some debate and then continue to push them. They are incredibly reasonable major structural changes thus they should be accepted eventually by non-partisans. Don't burn yourself out on just that image and remember to "roll with the punches." --Ben Houston 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Coat of arms image
Hi Netscott, I am a little puzzled by your message because 1) it wasn't my upload, 2) the image source, according to Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Israel.png says as-is (is this PD?). If you feel fairuse is more appropriate, I wouldn't mind. IANAL. ←Humus sapiens 01:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Know when it's time to give it up
My advice to you is to walk away from the New anti-Semitism article. This website has plenty of other articles that you can work on to try and make them more in line with what you consider to be NPOV. I would like to know, however, exactly what the problem is with the image in question since it appears to now be properly attributed. A poster like is bound to provoke a lot of people, none of which could be good. It merely represents what one poster maker wished to express visually.--MONGO 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Virtually all of my good faith edits on this article have been reverted systematically (and with no prior discussion). User:SlimVirgin (and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg) are totally showing ownership of the article.
Now User:Humus sapiens who's been involved in the content dispute has blocked me completely counter to this section of WP:BLOCK. Hopefully there'll be someone in the right mind who'll read the ANI post and know that my block was improper and unblock me. (→Netscott) 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I never wheel war, so I won't unblock you, but you can plack the {{unblock}} link up and see how that does.--MONGO 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well Humus sapiens is asking you on ANI if you feel the block to be improper... so do you? (→Netscott) 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48hrs
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I should at least be allow to continue the discussion on ANI. Humus you've been involved with this content dispute so you're not in the best postion to be blocking me. (→Netscott) 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever happend to NPOV being non-negotiable? My efforts have been solely to maintain NPOV here and I've been thrashed about irregardless of my efforts.
I probably spend too much time here... so if this block stands in any way shape or form I'll likely pack up my career here. (→Netscott) 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- While I disagree with your choice of behaviour in this situation, I've asked Humus for an interim unblock so you can contribute at ANI -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's appreciated Samir, thanks. (→Netscott) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unblocked. I am willing to give you another chance. ←Humus sapiens 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I reject an allegation that I have "been involved with this content dispute" - diffs please. ←Humus sapiens 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your name is in this thread and correct me if I am wrong but you didn't support my edits, no? (→Netscott) 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! You're not serious, are you? One ambiguous comment in an incredibly lengthy thread, and suddenly you're claiming he's "involved in a content dispute" with you? This is about your trolling, not about content, and your claim about Humus sapiens is further evidence of that trolling. Jayjg 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jayjg, Humus sapiens will likely admit that he didn't support my edits. I'm surprised how uncivil I've been treated by both you and User:SlimVirgin. I have been trying my best to make good faith edits relative to this image question and my treatment has been very disrespectful right from the get go. I even inquired on SlimVirgin's talk page about why she was reverting me. Did I get a response there? No. This image has a shady past. It was mistagged and uploaded as being an "antisemiticposter" and now Misplaced Pages is libeling the artist by not including clear sources and statements in the text of the article (or the caption). Why is that such a problem to do? (→Netscott) 05:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because you've been editing in bad faith, not good faith, as demonstrated by your edits and trolling. To claim that Misplaced Pages is libelling the artist, when it is you who keep posting his name everywhere, and associating him with anti-Semitism, against the objections of other editors, is the height of hypocrisy. Jayjg 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've never said that. I've only spoken in terms of the current state of affairs. You know it is not a small thing to be branding the work of an artist as anti-Semitic and not support this in the article itself (two link refs to newsource blogs does not cut it). The reason this is the case is that by branding and artist's work as anti-Semitic Misplaced Pages itself brands the artist as anti-Semitic. WP:BLP does not allow for that. (→Netscott) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- But you're the one branding his work as anti-Semitic! See what I mean about bad faith? Jayjg 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You can't honestly tell me that with that image at the head of the article on new anti-Semitism Misplaced Pages itself is not branding that art as new anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've been explaining the same thing to you for a week now; that the image displays the controversy. Continuously posting the same arguments, even after they have been explained to many times by me and others, is yet another example of bad faith editing and trolling. Jayjg 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've never said that. I've only spoken in terms of the current state of affairs. You know it is not a small thing to be branding the work of an artist as anti-Semitic and not support this in the article itself (two link refs to newsource blogs does not cut it). The reason this is the case is that by branding and artist's work as anti-Semitic Misplaced Pages itself brands the artist as anti-Semitic. WP:BLP does not allow for that. (→Netscott) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because you've been editing in bad faith, not good faith, as demonstrated by your edits and trolling. To claim that Misplaced Pages is libelling the artist, when it is you who keep posting his name everywhere, and associating him with anti-Semitism, against the objections of other editors, is the height of hypocrisy. Jayjg 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jayjg, Humus sapiens will likely admit that he didn't support my edits. I'm surprised how uncivil I've been treated by both you and User:SlimVirgin. I have been trying my best to make good faith edits relative to this image question and my treatment has been very disrespectful right from the get go. I even inquired on SlimVirgin's talk page about why she was reverting me. Did I get a response there? No. This image has a shady past. It was mistagged and uploaded as being an "antisemiticposter" and now Misplaced Pages is libeling the artist by not including clear sources and statements in the text of the article (or the caption). Why is that such a problem to do? (→Netscott) 05:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! You're not serious, are you? One ambiguous comment in an incredibly lengthy thread, and suddenly you're claiming he's "involved in a content dispute" with you? This is about your trolling, not about content, and your claim about Humus sapiens is further evidence of that trolling. Jayjg 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your name is in this thread and correct me if I am wrong but you didn't support my edits, no? (→Netscott) 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's appreciated Samir, thanks. (→Netscott) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- While I disagree with your choice of behaviour in this situation, I've asked Humus for an interim unblock so you can contribute at ANI -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my asking you this question because it's kind of silly but are you familiar with the concept of implication? As in: through the juxtaposition of the image relative to the aritcle (with it at the lead, etc) it is directly implied that it is an example of new anti-Semitism? This is particularly true when there is no third party reliable source quote in the article relative to the image. That was the whole reason I made this guide. (→Netscott) 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for a week
Netscott, in accordance with the discussion at ANI and lack of opposition, I have blocked you for a week for your agitatory editing. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Buddy, for your own health, I'd recommend you take some time off anyway. I recommend you get involved in Misplaced Pages review... Frankly, the way some of our admins act as if their shit doesn't stink is starting to get on my nerves as well. Bastique▼ voir 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)