Thanks for blocking that guy. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow! thanks so much! that is extremely valuable to me. I really appreciate it. thanks. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you may or may not know, User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles returned to Wikipedia as User:A Nobody, his right to vanish having been overturned by his use of sockpuppets to continue editing afterwards. However, his talk archives, as well as his contributions, have all been deleted. I have reason to believe they'll be needed for a conduct RfC in the near future (as it appears he's gone back to his previous editing habits), so could these be undeleted? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no choice but to re-request that they be speedily deleted. The request to restore them is being made by a user with a history of hostility against me and serve no constructive end that could possibly trump not wanting my real world harassers to identify me by my old username. If that was not a concern, I would not have bothered to be renamed as something totally anonymous. Anything of value is still in my current talk page's edit history anyway. It is not right for someone who has acted aggresively against another user to make such requests as restoring stuff that was deleted due to real world concerns. I just want that user to leave me alone already. I have not commented in many deletion discussions since returning. And when I did I made my argument and leave or only reply to those who replied to me. Who replied to who as well as to others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blah (2nd nomination) or how about to multiple editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits a discussion for an article I created nonetheless? That user left some bullying rant on my talk page that I'd rather not dignify suggesting that I made a personal attack by calling a nominator in AfD of an article disruptive. Well, laughing at someone else in a discussion is hardly productive/constructive. No reasonable editor could see anything even remote in my most recent AfD comments that could possibly justify an RfC. The only way someone would start such a thing based on these examples of my recent participation could only be doing so out of bias and to again in effect bully someone with whom they obviously disagree. And think about who is trying to make something out of nothing? In most of his recent AfD comments in the past couple of days, he has made four edits in the one for an article I created and made several critiquing me in another one. I didn't comment on his or anyone else's initial "vote." And then there's the talk page rant, and then there's these plastering of my old username on PhilKnight's talk page even though I explicitly state that I do not want my old name bandied about. As you can see if anything others including that individual are being far more confrontational, and disagreeing with someone's arguments is not cause to risk allowing for real world issues to be exacerbated. I would much rather this user just leave me alone already and just ignore me if he doesn't like my arguments. If I can do that, why can't he? If any of my arguments are weak, then let the closing admin decide, but we shouldn't bully people who disagree with us and arrogantly say that just because we disagree they must automatically be disruptive. I think doing incivil things like laughing at others is disruptive, but seriously, citing sources found on Google Books...? Please! As you can see above, I am not commenting on everybody's arguments I disagree with and I certainly am not threatening them with admin boards or making some big effort to restore anything from their userspace that was deleted due to real world harassment issues. I need those pages to remain deleted due to such concerns and no vendetta any individual has against me should possibly trump that. --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the above, talk page archives shouldn't be necessary for an RFC when everything is preserved in the history of User talk:A Nobody [1]. With that in mind, the U1 deletion should be valid. Could you re-delete them on that basis?--chaser - t 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chaser, I agree they're not strictly necessary, but they could possibly be convenient or time-saving. If the problem is their current location, then obviously they could be moved. That said, if you, or any other admin, considers they should be deleted, then by all means go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell the user in question has never gone through oversight to get this material deleted, and is still going around telling random editors his age, date of birth, vocation et cetera; I therefore can't see why one would have cause to believe that this is a genuine privacy issue rather than (as was suggested by a half-dozen people in the AN archive I linked earlier) an attempt to avoid scrutiny (and thus receive the benefits of RTV without the associated drawbacks). Indeed, this is rather an important part of the user conduct issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm going to delete the pages this evening (when I have more free time) and restore the content (so as to not create any move logs in the process) in A Nobody's userspace. Is that a fair compromise? A Nobody, can we agree not to re-speedy them?--chaser - t 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's fine, leave it - I'm going to step back from this one (I've got better things to do than be subject to yet more canvassing alleging I'm trying to out an editor). If I've got to pick through the contributions list then so be it, if it'll reduce the drama for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "content" is still available in my current talk page's edit history. Anyone can just look through my current talk page's edit history if ever needed, which at this time, there is no legitimate need for anyway as any RfC at this time would be in obvious bad faith and disruptive. I would never acknowledge, comment in, or feel bound by any discussion made in bad faith anyway. It would be a tremendous waste of time. In any event, the old archives were copy and pasted by a bot, so the actual edits are still in my talk page's history. I never did page moves to archive. The main thing is that I do not want big headlines or page titles anywhere displaying my old username by which I can be identified in the real world. And if it is not acceptable for my old userpage to have any content, then for someone else with a less than amicable history with me to demand my talk pages be restored for what I strongly believe are not constructive ends is unacceptable. This is not about compromising here. And no one should be expected to compromise on such questionable circumstances. I had these pages deleted and was renamed for real world reasons. If I was just trying to avoid scrutiny then why bother keeping a new username? As I have indicated in this thread, this request to restore those archives is being made by someone with a bias against me and as Childofmidnight's baffled reaction to his claims in his rant suggests the allegations and threats are unfounded. Rather they seem more about stifling an opponent than anything else. In the handful of AfDs that I have commented in recently, I hardly imitate my old style. I make my comment and leave or only reply to those who replied to me. Otherwise, if anyone disagrees with me, they can move on. No one is forced to reply to anyone. If my argument is not persuasive leave that to the closing admin. I have not recently made it a point to reply to others who have not replied to me, so why should someone else make such a deal out of doing so to me? Is this really what we have come to? People can use whatever arguments they want. I can't stand arguments that have "cruft" in them, so should I threaten those who use them with RfCs? And I absolutely would not ask that anyone's userspace be restored if they made any claim about real world concerns, even if I didn't really believe them and even if they were among those who have been most mean to me here. On some things, we have to give people some benefit of the doubt and err on the side of what's right, rather than persisting vindictiveness needlessly. Heck, you know some editors even two who are now admins emailed me a while back with swear words and name calling and yet because I consider emails personal correspondences, I would not and will not post them online, even though they would probably help my cause. If I want to create archives of my old comments, then it should be up to me to do that. They're in the edit history and that is sufficient. I see nowhere in which we are required to keep archives of everything from our talk pages so long as they are in the edit history. I want to make one thing very clear. I am not trying to interact with the user who started all of this and thus if he continues to start threads or threaten action against me, it will be clear to everyone that it is bad faith one-sided fanaticism. As any objective look at my editing since returning would show, I am not interested in conflicts with others and have rather tried working with others to reference and rescue articles and to spread kindness as with my many Happy Thanksgiving messages. I found this whole episode outrageous. That someone would actually regard my constructive comments in a handful of discussions as such is as Childofmidnight reacted when he read them mind-boggling and I hope that that user can indeed work on something worthwhile and not fixate and worry about me any longer. I am not interested in reigniting any old disputes and so I hope that similarly anyone with whom I had come into conflict in the past will similarly have the maturity to move on. --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, while I am reluctant to acknowledge the user who originaly requested they be restored's post above, I must say that claiming that I used sockpuppets (plural) after my attempt to vanish is misleading and inaccurate. ONE account was determined "likely" me by a checkuser, not "confirmed," and that account never commented in the same discussions as mine as you can see with this. Any other accounts alleged to be mine in the last year came back as "unlikely" or "inconclusive" and even if I were using any other accounts or IPs to edit, which I am not, in the three checkusers done on me this autumn, they would have turned up in at least one of them. In addition to that dubious claim, you also have the false allegation that my accusing the nominator of an AfD as being disruptive as a personal attack when again, what else do you describe a nominator's laughing at someone else who disagrees in a discussion? In any event, as you can see in this old edit, while I had a proactive discussion with Stfile and Pagrashtak regarding different approaches to AfDs, the user above derailed that discussion by instead taking a hostile if not mocking tone, which is not the way to convince anyone of anything. I have incidentally requested oversight and am awaiting a reply. We request oversight by email. To make something clear, the user requesting this is in effect dishonestly bullying me because he disagrees with me. I want that user to leave me alone and to stop trying to out me. No one can put two and two together if I make vague remarks about my age or vocation when my username is about as anonymous as one can get. People can draw connections with my high school nickname. Whatever this fixation is on me that certain editors can't let go of when I am acting in good faith and constructively needs to end. It is unhealthy and unproductive. I am not trying to stir up anything with that user, there is no legitimate reason for him to create unnecessary drama with me. --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tnank you for the Barnstar related to my participation in the deletion process. Deletion is an important part of Wikipedia and I feel privileged that you recognized my efforts with the award. Thanks again. -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I noticed that the wikipedia article about Babylonian Twins (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Twins) was deleted. I am not sure what is the reason for that but if you need more references about this project, please let me know. You can also Google it to have some background about the subject.
Thanks
Rabah
(Rabahs (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Hi Rabah, I've restored the article, and opened a discussion here. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That guy keeps turning up as different socks. Can something be done to turn him off permanently? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Baseball Bugs, I've protected the article for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. That should help. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I just know how you came to that decision ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ceedjee, the notification doesn't mean anything beyond being a notification. RolandR is already notified, however, you haven't been. I'm not saying that I've looked into the disagreement in sufficient detail to reach any sort of conclusion. However, from skimming over the surface of the dispute, it looks to be slightly heated, so I would advise disengaging and seeking dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok. fair enough.
- Ceedjee (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oups. Sorry. Not fair at all. RolandR is not notified.
- And it is even more stupid that the only remaining guy (with AshleyKennedy -blocked one month- and Nishidani -in strike-) who read books and articles on the topic is notified just because he is attacked by propagandists from one side (Zeq, the other one recently blocked, JIDF and co) or the other (RolandR, Peter Cohen, ...) and is fed up.
- It is up to you guys. up to you. but our place is indeed with Zero000 and Pitchoford rahter than in these wasting time conflicts.
- Good luck Ceedjee (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my fault for not explaining properly, the original participants of the ArbCom case, were all notified by the clerk who closed the case. They aren't listed under the notification section, however, they were deemed to be notified. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you deleted this category when there was still an unsettled image in it?--Rockfang (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is the image file characteristics were deliberately altered to prevent it showing up in categories, due to the nature of the image. However, that's only a guess. Anyway, I've deleted the image. PhilKnight (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil,
You removed a photo that I uploaded for my Kyoko Okazaki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Kyoko_Okazaki.jpg
I want to ask you to reconsider this decision. The image is non-free, but no free images exist of this woman on the internet or in print. She is an underground manga artist who does not do interviews and was in a disfiguring car accident years ago. It is very unlikely that any other images of her will ever surface (free or non-free). The photo that I uploaded was very low resolution, and is a press photo that originally comes from the back of one of her comics. What do you say? If I reupload it, can you approve it instead of removing it?
Asa Kawano
Asakawano (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Asakawano, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Phil, I added a message to the discussion. Did I add it to the right place, or should I create a separate talk page for this image? Asakawano (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the message you left was in the right place. PhilKnight (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Phil, I noticed that you added the photo to my Kyoko Okazaki page. I am curious why you added the photo where you did, instead of where I had it before, in the info box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asakawano (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asakawano, when the image was placed in the info box it seems to have pixelated slightly . PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- On second thoughts, ignore the above. The problem was that I couldn't figure out how to resize the image, which has now been done by Joshua Issac. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Would you kindly undelete this image? Thanks. It was discussed in WikiProject Visual arts. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi SusanLesch, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. PhilKnight (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Call on the "Steve Falconer" article
Good call on the "Steve Falconer" delete; we've been trying to get this done for a while! Keep up the good work!!
Thanks I should have thought of that.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Ty 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your restoring some of the images that the bot deleted yesterday. - These also are particularly important that need to be restored - Jean Dubuffet, (the only image of his work), Paul Klee, (the lead in his article), Karel Appel, Charles Arnoldi, (single images), Mimmo Paladino, Larry Poons, and the Morris Louis - the lead in his article. Thank you. Lest I forget - Balthus, Nam June Paik, Sam Francis, Herbert Ferber, Anselm Kiefer, Louise Bourgeois, and the others need restoration as well. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking 88.106.169.24. That was getting rather tiresome. srushe (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy strongly limits the use of fair use images for purposes of depiction. There's no debate about this. I have re-removed the image from Kyoko Okazaki. Please do not re-instate the image to the article as it is a blatant violation of core policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hammersoft, as you know, the image is listed at IfD, and the debate will be closed shortly. Obviously, if the result is 'keep', then it will be re-included. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for blocking User:65.79.6.88 as per my request. his vandalism contained someone's phone number. can you delete those revisions? shirulashem (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I was closing the deletion process, I had an edit conflict with you on the image's description page. I was actually going to remove the {{ifd}}, in fact I was in the process of doing so. But thanks for tidying up the formatting there. Please let me know if I did anything wrong with the closure, as it was my first time, and I'm not an admin. -kotra (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi kotra, sorry, I didn't mean to tread on your toes. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. No worries. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Dean West. I am a relatively new user. I understand that you have blocked user mattsayshola. My comment may be very unnecessary and I apologize if it is but thank you for blocking that disruptive user. I may be new, but I can already tell this place certainly must not have room for disruptive users like him. Again, thank you.
--Dean West (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Dean West[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I've deleted the EW notice as trolling and explained why on the EW board. No reason why the article can't be unprotected, to be honest. Black Kite 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I sort of completely changed its layout. I should probably have kept you in the loop ;-) Tell me what you think!
Also, are you on Skype or IRC occasionally? We need, like, a coordinator trifecta of awesomeness. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Xavexgoem, the changes so far look good, however I think if someone wants informal mediation during the refurbishment, we may still be able to assist if they post on WT:MEDCAB explaining what's happening. I don't have Skype, but IRC would be possible in early evening (GMT). PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's evaded your ban posting via IP now. He's claiming bias on the Vreel Talk page as well as reverting the edit to his version. I figured you'd be able to take care of it better then a general complaint. I reverted his edit but I'd rather not do so again as I'm already borderline on 3RR. But i think it falls under vandalism anyway. Bios Element (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by your impoliteness in failing to ask me first [3]. Perhaps it was some sort of emergency? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, you're quite right, I should have asked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without casting stones here, but in the abstract; what is an editor supposed to do in this situation? There was an edit war. I agreed on my own recognizance to stop it after it became clear it was non-productive. I placed a warning on the other participant's talk page regarding the edit war and then reported it to seek assistance in resolving the dispute. Blocking either or both of us doesn't solve anything, and I fail to see what I did that was wrong. The lesson I have learned from this is that in the future I should not report edit wars, because the reaction will be to block all parties regardless of circumstances, who reported, and who had already agreed to stop editing the articles in question.
I asked for help. I __still__ need that help in educating User:2008Olympian on this issue and that help hasn't been provided. So where am I supposed to go? What am I supposed to do? How can I do it without being blocked again? Or, in future situations such as this should I just let the fair use abuse to continue?
Note that I haven't invoked exceptions to 3RR in this discussion, but it most certainly applies. This version of the article introduced an additional fair use image onto the project that is not necessary, when this version produces the same effect. User:2008Olympian's complaint with regards to the latter is that the helmets don't face each other, and that doesn't look good. That's blatant abuse of our fair use policy and guidelines and my removal of the content is an exception to 3RR.
Is the lesson here that I should do nothing when I see fair use abuse? Just let it stand? Let someone else get blocked for it? I'm looking for direction here. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hammersoft, to be honest, I'm slightly confused. Up to now, you have shown a detailed understanding of the non-free policy, but in this case you seemed to be edit warring to include images that don't have fair use rationales for the article. I think if you were just removing a non-free image that obviously wasn't in compliance there wouldn't be a problem, because that's exempt from 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last edit I made to the article did add two fair use images to the article that lacked rationale to do so. I routinely remove images from articles for not having a rationale for a particular article. In this case, I did not feel the images are appropriate or necessary for this article. I'm strongly against overusing fair use images every time a particular team is mentioned. I think it leads to serious abuse such as can be seen on the "file links" section of Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png. I was using the images to visually demonstrate to User:2008Olympian that using the existing images would work just as well as the image he was trying to use, and frankly was willing to let the usage I demonstrated stand if he had been willing to provide rationales. That's where I was going with this.
- I'm still flummoxed as to what I was supposed to do in this case. I attempted to educate, showed alternate ways of doing things, and then when I asked for another voice to step in for assistance, I got slapped for it. As I noted above, the help I was seeking still hasn't been provided. I'm at a loss as to how to continue in this particular case and in future case. Without sounding like I'm predicting the sky is falling, I'm at this point considering stopping fair use enforcement because I'll be blocked for it again. I don't know how to continue here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I caused any trouble. I created every single NFL Expansion Draft article and just wanted them to look good. Since every deals with one or two teams exclusively, I thought that they could have logos on them similar to the team pages. I wasn't trying to edit war in either case, I just wanted to debate the images without them getting deleted. But this just hasn't been worth the grief. I'm just going to read Wiki from now on.--2008Olympianchitchat 09:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
