I have the same concerns you have over breaking GFDL with the proposed usurpation policy. I think I might have found a solution which could possibly make everyone happy (IANAL tho). My concern is that the identity of a user who had been subject to usurpation would be usurped as well -- obviously a flagrant breach of the license. But what if the usurper was obligated to keep a perpetual, highly visible notice on both their user page and their talk page stating that "this account has been operated by XYZ (usurped) until YYYY-MM-DD"? Do you think that would be acceptable? As much as I have fought against the proposed usurpation policy (before your radical edit), I think this could actually work -- as long as you wear a prominent notice on your forehead, I don't think anyone can accuse you of identity theft or anything similar. What say you? --GutzaTT+21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean we allow for usurpation as originally proposed, but the usurper has to perpetually identify themselves as an usurper of an account held by somebody else before the usurpation date. --GutzaTT+21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Notes reads "When the rename has been completed, your account will have been renamed, and any contributions you have made (including deleted contributions) will be reattributed to your new account as a background process." What am I missing? --GutzaTT+22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot change the person, and we also cannot change the identity, that far I'm all with you. But what's in a name, really -- apart from an identity? As long as you preserve the identity, the person behind the name, I don't think there are any problems. After all, the GFDL doesn't make any provisions on usernames, it makes provisions related to authorship (and authorship is related to persons, people -- not usernames). --GutzaTT+22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not one either (just kidding). But licenses, as all legal documents, are about people, not usernames. I'm of the opinion that as long as you make an obvious, good faith effort of preserving the identity of the person (again, person, not username) who has indeed been the author of a derivative work, you are very much in the clear -- it's more than a reasonable effort to preserve the true history of the document. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one -- I'm just running this by you. --GutzaTT+22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're making me play the Devil's advocate. You seem quite rigid about preserving the History section as if set in stone. What if, in a real world scenario, Ms. John contributes to a GFDL document, gets marries, becomes Mrs. Smith, and asks for the History section to be revised? Does it or doesn't it get revised? Are there legal precedents? (I said I was playing the Devil's advocate because I'm fully aware in case of usurpation poor Ms. John not only doesn't ask for anything, but she's also completely oblivious to the name change -- but hey, what's life without a debate?) --GutzaTT+23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense. But now (please indulge me), what if Ms. John happened to actually be called Ms. Hillary Clinton instead? Hear me out, this really isn't nonsensical: Ms. Hillary Clinton gets married, and she's now Mrs. Hillary Smith. She did have legitimate contributions under the (then) legitimate name Hillary Clinton, and nobody's denying them. But now there's one Hillary Clinton who happens to be a more prominent person (read "contributor"), and at the same time the former Ms. Clinton doesn't in fact use that name any more. Wouldn't it be acceptable for the current Mrs. Hillary Clinton to take over that name -- as a brand, if you wish? That is, as long as Mrs. Clinton bears a visible banner at all times reading "whatever happened before 2007-03-05 under the name Hillary Clinton is belong to Mrs. Hillary Smith"? --GutzaTT+23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting using a dual account, as Mrs. Hillary Clinton wouldn't if Ms. Clinton were a known pornstar. People are intent on preserving their identities, pornstars or not, politicians or not, private people or not. My point is that we have to preserve the identity, not necessarily the username, as long as ambiguity is not a matter of concern (and I do take that quite seriously). --GutzaTT+23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we reached the end of our exploratory journey: this is, in my opinion, something which should go straight to the usurpation policy: "The GFDL is only interested in the name the person adds to the history when they release the work under the GFDL." Thank you for taking the time to do this with me, it has really helped me understand this issue a lot better than before this conversation. --GutzaTT+11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to upload highlander pictures from other sites when I was a fresh user on wikipedia but didn't knew exactly how to do it well. I guess the licensing is wrong since I can't find the picture on the website I took it from. Not really an expert on uploading images. Stopped doing it long ago. If you think it should be deleted, the do it Secretaria 04:02 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 10; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ImamAli.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I'm just tidying things up now and maybe one day it could be a featured candidate - I'd rather have exact page numbers, but if that isn't practical then we'll leave it as two pages and see what happens. Thanks for the tip re pp and p though, I'll look into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm after replacing most of the Jim Shead references in the article with refs from this book - its only numbers and years, and should be easy to find. Would you be able to do it? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My observations and comments at your RFA may not have pleased you but kindly understand that there is nothing personal in my comments aganist you. We all know that you were good at using the admin tools but people expect a right attitude in RFA. Having said that I hope you take my comments in right way and prehaps think of what actually went wrong.. Anyways Best wishes again. Thanks -- TinuCherian - 11:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- TinuCherian - has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! ....Hopefully this would have a made a better day for you. Best wishes Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You had significantly more support this time around than before. I'm sure that after another few months, and you run for RfA again, you'll pass RfA. Best wishes. Acalamari15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of banned books. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Additionally you are falsely claiming "long-standing consensus" where no such consensus exists. Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Since it's apparently courteous to inform other people when they're mentioned on WP:ANI, this mentions your nick but does not really involve you. Also, thanks for having that kitten picture up. --Kizor11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine, like me, you'd like to forget all the ugliness behind the debate on placeholders but I was recently made aware of a bot request to remove all instances of the image placeholders. I have sent this message to inform you of it as well since I recall you as an active participant in the discussion and should be able to shed some light on the wisdom of the bot request. Regards, DoubleBlue (Talk)21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article
Thanks for sending the reminders around, but you got the wrong day - "Saturday (September 25th)" is either today (Tuesday 25th), or it should be Saturday 27th... That probably doesn't matter too much, though. Mike Peel (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.
Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.
Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.
We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.
Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.
P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fatal!ty(T☠LK)09:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the involved administrators, I regret that the above deletion nominations had ever been placed -- the article was among a large group nominated for deletion contrary to policy by a user who has now been blocked for doing so, by consensus at WP:AN/I. Deletion has been prevented, and please feel free to remove the notice. DGG (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can put Vile Parle back on, per [1] (check all three pages.) [2] says "Trident hotel, Taj hotel, Wadi Bunder, Cama hospital, GT hospital, VT station, Bootleggers pub, Girgaum and Metro cinema." GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Lansana Conté, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 —talk23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a good faith effort to reformat what you wrote (no content was changed) in order to keep the same basic formatting of the other proposals (for clarity). If I have, in any way, misconstrued or distorted your comments or ideas, please feel free to alter them or revert. — BQZip01 —talk01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geni. Respectfully, I would ask you not to suggest who I should and should not leave out of a conversation, thanks. Brion got himself involved with it by commenting, others have mentioned him and I do not see why that comment was directed solely at myself. I have a brain, a mouth and a keyboard. I decide what I want to discuss. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm leaving this message on the talkpage of several of the Wikispecies admins. User:Cheesecracker has spent an hour and a half running riot through Wikispecies. I couldn't find an admin urgently so requested help from the Stewards. A two hour block has been placed while cleanup occurs. Can an indefinite block please be used? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. My efforts show that almost all college football teams (which seems to be the general genre of those who oppose), if not all, have a valid free image available. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 —talk02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Vega machine, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vega machine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre(talk)15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What have you done????? You've rmeoved all the images i spent ages add to the article. You;ve rmeoved the map and stripped it of four years of edits? Can you please explain what the copy vio problem is as the article is in a dreadul state now.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beeeatch! I understand particularly with a complaint. Maybe it would be permitted if you pasted the former article into my User:Dr. Blofeld/Ivory Coast and I can begin working on it? I had it on my list to transwiki from French wikipedia but if I can combine materials (and write our own version with the vio) could you allow me to do this Geni? Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can trust me that I won't make a mess. I have an article ready to translate from French wikipedia which the bulk of the article will be when complete. However I'd like to view the former article to see if anything vital is missing and if there is anything worth mentioning from it. You can be assured that I won't restore any copyrighted material and in the end we will have a much better article without the problems I promise. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate it if you at least gave me a chance to do something. It will not remotely resemble what was there before. I will be translating from French wikipedia but I want to see what was there to write the best article I can on it. What have you got to lose? If I develop a version which is a mess you can delete it again. A chance please? Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A ruling in the wikiquette alert to which you were party has been made and can be found on the wikiquette page. This is a courtesy message as required and does not need a personal response to me. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecating the GFDL-1.2-only templates on the English Wikipedia
I see you recently deleted a goodly number of edits to the articles on MLA style due to their containing copyvio material. Is there any chance you could reach into the void and retrieve the citations used in the refs in the then-latest versions of the articles? I put a good bit of work into them and would rather not have to recreate them manually if I can avoid it. Thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geni, Just a bit of a heads up for you. You have inserted a section of a 1954 OS map, showing Halifax and Sowerby Bridge, on the Halifax, West Yorkshire article, (ie:- File:Halifaxmap1954.png) which you have uploaded to commons. However you have have not put the correct description on for the map during the Commons upload. The description states: 'Map of penistone from 1954. Scale 1 inch to the mile 600DPI Sheet 102 "Huddersfield" series 7'. Somehow I don't feel you would have Halifax on any Map of Penistone and certainly not on sheet 102 from Series 7! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Geni. I noticed that you changed the infobox image for the penis article. While I somewhat agree that the new image is useful, I think it would be appropriate to discuss such a change before we commit to it. Thus I've started a discussion at the article's talk page, seen at Talk:Penis#Changed images again. I'd like to invite your participation, if possible. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall you having a book of vanity fair prints; would you be able to check for Charles Gill? Some time between 1875 and 1910, I believe. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the only reference to the word snollygoster?
This word was found in Wikipediai in 2008. There were several different definitions found. Also, I was a child when Harry Truman
was running for president, he called another person a republican snollygoster. The news man interviewing him asked, "Mr. Truman,
what is a snollygoster?" Truman answered "it is an old southern word meaning, a child born to an unwed mother".
We would appreciate any infromation you have on this.
No permission, so the article needs a re-write to adhere to the wikipedia standards. Feel free to tag/modify/delete etc.
Kirk (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, since OTRS are confidential. But if Geni could clarify the general issues concerned that would be great, since I can't find anything on-wiki about it. Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test(formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xenotalk14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. Only Admins can do that. If you disagree with a nomination, then you need to place a {{hangon}} tag below the deletion tag. BIGNOLE (Contact me)11:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an admin that doesn't identify themselves as one? Interesting. As for the speedy, criteria #3 for redirects is about typos. Maybe it isn't entirely "implausible" that they would capitalize "film", but the point is that we shouldn't be putting in every variation of the disambiguation of a film's title. It's one thing to have A Nightmare On Elm Street, where the "on" is incorrectly capitalized, because that's a common mistake. Most average readers don't know our disambiguation naming conventions to begin with, and to assume that they'd get it all of it right except that we don't capitalize "film" is a little hard to swallow. If they know all that, then they know we don't capitalize it. Secondly, given that our search bar now has that nifty drop down box that automatically brings up the titles as you type, that means that the second they put "(2010..." it would automatically bring up the correct title. If we keep the redirect, it means we'll have two that pop up, which makes one unnecessary to have even if it is "harmless". And if you test this, the capitalized "f" is the one that comes up first. BIGNOLE (Contact me)11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, assuming of course that they don't have java turned on, where are they going to end up should they type in A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 Film) (if that redirect wasn't there)? Probably at one of those search pages that say "Did you mean ....". As such, they'd probably learn that you don't capitalize the "f" in the name. So, yes it may be "harmless", but it's also unnecessary to have because it's a disambiguated title that would require them to 1) know how to disambiguate and 2) take them to a place that will direct them to the correct title anyway. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting you because you are one of three administrators who have edited the MediaWiki space in the past 24 hours. I've realized that the "Cancel" link is no longer functioning, and I believe that your edits here may have been a factor. I will be contacting the other two administrators as well to see if it was their edit and not yours.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that edit was so long ago that I can't remember what made me say that it was unreliable. It seems at least somewhat reliable now that I look at it, so I can't give as straight an answer as I'd like. I'm presuming my figuring was if that was the only source that had the info and it was workable, it would've been picked up by other outlets. Wizardman22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone that nearly got blocked for removing propriatery sourced co-ordinates ( ie. Wikimapia/Google)
I have to say that your approach seems somewhat confrontational.
If the co-ordinates are problematic, use a talk page to suggest better ones
or better still replace them with sources you feel are 'ideologicaly' clean.
You could also lobby for reform of the policy about original research to allow self discovered
GPS readings to be added to articles..
Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
Hi Geni, I was wondering if you could help me. Following our recent discussion concerning privacy, I though it may be a good idea to remove the personal details I added, in the past, to my user pages (not one of my better decisions, in hindsight!) Would it be possible to remove this information from the edit histories?
This IP belongs to the long term vandal I describe here. A longer block on the IP would be effective in making sure that the edits do not continue once the block expires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geni/archive 7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Geni/archive 7's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Geni/archive 7!
Hi Geni, your vote on the Ireland article names may not count because you did not sign the template properly. Your sig is supposed to go inside the template as a final parameter like this: {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|F=0|sign=~~~~}}
Ah Geni - This guy is attacking me all day and then says he doesn't understand what "not F" means! Surely you wouldn't deny me a tap-in to an unprotected goal??? Sarah777 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I draw your attention to the fact that the editor you protected from my response has just now said, to me: "You are lying". What I did was presented a different set of data to his and it is very clear that he is aware of that fact but chose to call me a lier anyway. Now I can handle that; but not if my responses are being censored while he can indulge in personal attacks, invivility and, ironically in this case, lying. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I lived through one of my more bizarre Wiki encounters. An editor named Hammersoft, who is one of the self-appointed Wiki copyright enforcers, in good Monte-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail fashion, tried to convince a dozen administrators that I was trying to intimidate him through "legal threats" ("Help! I'm being oppressed!"). Not one of my happier Wiki moments. Apparently, the sane eventually prevailed and decided that one has to actually make a threat to take legal action (or at least mention legal action) before one can be construed as having made a "legal threat." All of this developed when the editor in question flagged one of WikiProject University of Florida's two-year-old photos for a possible derivative copyright violation (photo of underlying artwork; photo itself was unconditionally released already). I went to the media copyright discussion page to request help with the issue, and the editor in question followed me to the discussion page and pretty much struck a hard-line pose rather an attempting to find an exception/rationale for continued use based on facts that led me to believe that multiple "public domain" and "fair use" exceptions/rationales were probably available (63 year-old, state-owned statute on unrestricted public display on a state university campus for 63 years). You can read the whole hoary exchange, across 4 or 5 different talk, discussion and administrative pages, but it won't make you happy.
Anyway, one of the few good things that came of this was one of your UK compatriots, a young English lawyer who uses the handle Ironholds, recommended you as one of the two or three genuine copyright experts with whom one may discuss such issues. Over the next several weeks, I may be dealing with a series of interesting copyright questions over images. My whole reason for being on Wikipedia is to help with the University of Florida Project, my alma mater. I have made contact with the full-time university historian and archivist, and they have indicated their willingness to consider releasing a series of post-1923 images to illustrate revamped UF-related articles. I hope that I might be able to draw on your expertise in these matters, so that I can properly document such copyright releases correctly and without any further back-and-forth with the self-appointed copyright enforcers.
File:Porland island map1937.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Porland island map1937.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Porland island map1937.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know that she's really a soap opera actress? There wasn't even a way for me to know that it was claiming that she was a soap opera actress; "serial", for all I know, could be some trivial show on a minor network. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't paying attention; you might note that I edited that article a few minutes ago. I made no mental connexion between the two. Moreover, I never deleted a redirect: Vikkz94 changed it from a redirect, making it so that it read "She plays the role of Bhakti in Hamari Devrani." and included a little table. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be correct but in this case including a location map seemed to add value for readers unfamiliar with the OS's primary location. That would be true of any organisations where the head office is as key as it is for the OS. -Arb. (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have remembered another - I've worked out how I bumped into WikiFur! There was an IP user who was posting messages to Template talk:Cite web (which I have on my watchlist) and not signing his posts; when I put a {{subst:UnsignedIP2|16:18, 9 October 2009|134.181.233.102}} on these, he would remove the signature again. So I looked at his contributions to see what his usual activities were, and found that the only other page edited by this user was Furry fandom. One edit in particular contained the intriguing link further details; visit that at your peril. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you explain what it means, I can see how the information might be useful, particularly if it turned out that certain users were unreliable. However, adding "_source:user:Geni" to the coordinate parameter string is not a great way to do it.
Colons ( : ) are used to separate parameter names from values in the parameter string, so embedding a colon in the value will confuse simple-minded parsers. (This could be got around with something like "_source:user-Geni".)
The documentation for the source: parameter says that it's to avoid loss of precision due to copying. When copying coordinates obtained by GPS research, there's nothing to be done about loss of precision. A username doesn't address that need.
A username doesn't tell me what I most want to know. All wikipedia information comes from users; what I want to know is "Where did the user get this information?" so I can verify it myself or at least judge its reliability. "_source:GPS" would be a lot more enlightening. If I wanted to contact the editor who did the research, I'd go back in the history and find the editor's username that way, just like I would with any other edit.
Still, I'm open to new ideas, and I think there's value in finding ways to document coordinates better. There's been some discussion on the template talk page about including citations -- most recently at [[Template talk:Coord#References for {{coord}}|the template talk page]]. Perhaps you'd care to chime in. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already joined that discussion. Well done.
I see you've also gone and removed the source= error check that I added to {{Coord}}. I'm unhappy about this, because it changes the syntax of the template, and I think such changes should be extensively discussed before they are implemented. The source= syntax that you seem to be promoting is not documented anywhere. Nor are the many automated tools that process coord data going to undestand it. Please revert your change. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"source:GPS-user-geni" would be much better, though I have a concern that some usernames belong to different people on different wikis. I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia, so I suggest discussing the issue on the template talk page. Whatever practice we adopt, it should also be documented on the Template:Coord-doc-source page for the benefit of future editors and bot-writers.--Stepheng3 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented a notes= parameter for supplying footnotes (and other text) in {{Coord}}. I hope this will meet your needs with respect to citing sources. For instance, you could code {{Coord|1|N|2|E|notes=<ref>on-site GPS measurement by {{ultce|Geni}}</ref>}} to obtain 1°N2°E / 1°N 2°E / 1; 2[1].
I'd like to switch the source= error checking back on. Since I have no idea how many source= parameters are out there, I propose silent checking at first (maintenance category only, no red text). Would this be acceptable to you? --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've often cited sources for geocoordinates in the past, and I plan to do so more consistently now that title coordinates can be footnoted. This seems a natural consequence of WP:V. Users should be able to easily determine whether the coordinates in question come from a reliable source. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me that we disagree about how common the practice of footnoting coordinates is or will be in the future. What I really want to know is, would you object to me collecting articles that use "source=" instead of "source:" in a hidden maintenance category and then standardizing them? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the photograph to this article. I was unaware of it. Can you tell me where this gun is located? Any additional detail you can give us on the gun and how it came to be where it now is, would also be appreciated. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I've checked the Mariner's Mirror article cited on the page (the best technical summary I've seen of the vessels) and cannot come up with anything. I have read that work was done in 1902 prior to the transfer to Newfoundland but photographs taken there show 6" guns, at least on the port side. So when this gun was removed (or changed for another) will have to remain unknown.
On 11 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 El Salvador floods and mudslides, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Kindly try to understand that it is Peshawar Conspiracy case and there were five trial undertaken at different times. But it has to be written as A Case only. Kindly do not get influenced by the explanation. So please change the heading also which I am not able to do as I am not all that knowledgeable about using this wiki.
sumir
Sumir 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)
I am intending to replace the indefinite semi-protection on this article. The BLP violation (false notice of death) occurred when this article was NOT in the news - and our current checks and balances abjectly failed to spot and revert. Having subjected the subject to this once, we have no right to say "sorry that happened, but we will take absolutely no further steps to make sure it will not happen again". The risk is not in the next few days, where the article is high profile and thus fairly watched, it is beyond that when this low-notability bio returns to the underwatched state in which the original violation was able to happen without challenge.
Hi, I see you labeled the 7-inch Armstrong gun on Warrior as a replica. I uploaded to Commons various photographs of guns on Warrior from Flickr, and would like to correct their captions where necessary. Can you tell me which of the guns on Warrior are original and which are replicas ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding : I've updated the captions on Commons for all the photographs of 7 inch Armstrong guns on Warrior to indicate they are fibreglass replicas. There is a photograph of a 40-pounder and one of a 20-pounder there also.. dunno if they're original or not, but the 20-pounder is the longer field gun model which as far as I kknow wasn't a naval gun.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was inappropriate, without consensus at ANI,and does no good since admins can still delete articles through blocks. It comes across as very punitive. –Juliancolton | Talk23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, was totally about to come over here to say the same thing. We don't just block admins because we don't agree with what they're doing. You made much more drama out of this than was necessary, and you made yourself look bad. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When an admin has gone rogue and is using the tools the community has entrusted them with in a fashion the community has never shown any support for, of course they should be blocked. We have a deletion process, and community discussions about that process, exactly because we don't want admins taking the matter into their own hands. Algebraist23:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reblock is extremely unacceptable. You need to talk to ArbCom to make sure that blocking an editor for deleting things that are entirely within policy to delete, twice, is an acceptable approach. I suspect it is not, and I further suspect that you are verging on rogue, especially if you continue with further blocks absent a clear sanction to do so. Mere assertion of policy is insufficient. ++Lar: t/c00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.
This barnstar is awarded to Geni, for his valiant efforts against editors who abuse their administrative powers and hold consensus in "utter contempt". You are an incredibly valuable asset to this project. Ikip02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, you're doing the obvious right thing. Mass deleting articles in spite of deletion policy is extremly serious and must be dealt with swiftly, a block is the bare minimum that can be done. The point is of course not being punitive, it is avoiding more disruption and loss of content. The thread above is pretty disgusting. Don't let them take yourself down. Thank you for your work. --Cyclopiatalk00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some users are belwethers, good predictors of how things are going to go... and some are contrary indicators, if they say you're doing the right thing, you're actually doing the wrong thing. ++Lar: t/c00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Panamamap.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If WMC abuses MN's restriction from filing a complaint with further harassment ... should MN bring the issue to you for action? MN should be able to appeal to you on this, yes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ZP5 - harassment is out of bounds anywhere on the project, doubly so in a topic area under probation, and trebly when the target is restricted from acting.
@Geni - Thank you very much for getting involved at the climate change probation. Your two recent closes are absolutely on target and your actions are much appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention "grotesquely biased and damaging", "abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity" and so on. I have just blocked CoM for a week with curtailment possible if there is an apology. ZP5 as I said elsewhere please don't seek out particular admins when you see abuses, use the noticeboard. Geni's actions were spot on but he found the offences. If an admin comes because you choose to select them their impartiality gets undermined. --BozMotalk18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Peoples Program, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to this [24] in your summary you say If you do feel the need to bring more complaints in future try and make them more focused Does this mean that if i feel there is a need for a RFE then i may do so? Currently WMC is reverting changes which remove unreliable sources such as blogs and self published websites. As soon as i remove them he reverts me. His continued use of these unreliable sites is disruptive and against policy. If it continues then i will have no option other than to file an RFE.
Thanks
Mark mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you were desysopped for wheel-warring last time, why on earth are you undoing admin actions without discussion on a BLP protection issue, and on the same article for a second time? [[25]]
Your unprotection last time created much discussion and eventually reinstatement. Now, granted, three months on, a case could be made for unprotection, but why on earth are you doing it and without even the common courtesy to discuss with the protecting admins? There's WP:RFPP, the article talk page, or the talk pages of Lar, Alison and myself - but you've used none. Pretty piss-poor judgement here. Please back up and discuss.--Scott Mac (Doc)22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think Scott may be stating things a bit stridently, I cannot help but agree with his overall concerns. See also User_talk:Lar#Alexander_Chancellor_protection... While I think that protection removal may well be warranted, some discussion first might have been nice. This sort of unilateral action is not a good approach, Geni. ++Lar: t/c15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of "walls in the tomb have collapsed or cracked due to excavations in the late 50s and early 60s" can serve as a poster child for the WP guideline against using two-digit dates. I really can't be sure if you meant 1850s or 1950s. Please clarify, if you can. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. I see a handful of these every day, but this is the first one where I really couldn't just wing it and prefix with "19". Happy tomb robbing! Chris the speller (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reduction of the supposed Dab 68-pounder you created to a Rdr logically follows from Dab, MoSDab, and taking at face value what you put in it. If you think it has become a harmful Rdr, you may nom it on RfD, or replace it by an article on one sense of "68-pounder" (perhaps by expanding your text -- assuming there is more uniting your three senses than just the element of "weighing 68 pounds or handling something that does", into an article than can survive AfD). IMO whether you read the Dab'n documentation is your own business, but i consider you responsible for doing so, and addressing the objections that have already been implicitly raised, if you're not satisfied with backing off from your stated objection to the Rdr. --Jerzy•t21:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Altho it's important to remember that the only problems relevant to continuation of admin status are the ones that involve misuse of admin status, i'm shocked by the idea of an en:WP admin
who fails, in a dispute, to distinguish between "valid articles" and "valid potential articles", or
who shows such thorough ignorance of Dab guidelines, while involved in a dispute about a Dab and just after having been directed to them.
I hope you'll consider discussing with more care, and according more AGF to colleagues' ideas of what's relevant to a dispute you're involved in. Thanks, tho, for the valuable 68-Pounder Lancaster gun article. I'll comment on its talk page when i get to it. --Jerzy•t23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After removing the policy template from WP:Research you explained on the discussion page that the RFC had not been advertised properly. I offer the following as my attempts to advertise the discussion:
To my knowledge, everything to do with this RFC meets the recommendations at Wikipedia:Policy#Proposals, but I can understand why a broader consensus might be needed for the approval of new policies. If we re-opened the RFC and advertised through WP:CENT would you stand behind the consensus? --EpochFail(talk|work)22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you explain where do you see that the results of flagged revision do not look good on German Wikipedia? It is live on German Wikipedia since August 2008! It is true, a second opinion tends to be conservative for good faith edits, but obvious, clear cases of vandalism get less, I assume. If it does not get the main page, there is no point to vandalise". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the data is bad? We have unemployment, we are successful (we are not growing fast from zero anymore), we had some mess because of some pics of the beginning of the XX century. As I see it, it is ok; things could go wrong though in a global recession... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.
Dear Sir, Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief. I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item. I hope this helps. Yours faithfully,
[name] Curator of Artillery Royal Armouries
I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.
That photo appears to confirm the gun as QF 6-inch Mk III. The photograph shows a gun with trunnions on Vavasseur mount which fits Mk III, also the breech lacks the lug underneath which Mk I and II had for connection to recoil buffer. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, just a quick note to say "what a pleasure working with you". Yours, especially if you ever need anything, Shem (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i'm on vacation (July 2010) and saw a Fuelman brand gas station. i've never heard of this chain but i liked their mascot, i was curious about them, and checked Wikipedia--page deleted by you (Geni) 02:08, 17 September 2006, and i was wondering why? (The "Why was my page deleted?" link only seems like it might be useful for people who have visited or edited the Fuelman page before, which i haven't, since i only just heard of the place.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.5.26 (talk)
An age ago, you asked about how much oakum people had to pick - it's now referenced in the article, 2lbs/day was pretty standard for a man, 1lb/day for a girl under 16, up to 6lbs/day for a man on hard labour. If you're interested in that kind of stuff you'll probably enjoy the Mayhew & Binny book, it's a fascinating read. Le Deluge (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am delighted you are suddenly interested in lovers, please don't try and bully me [27] that template is stupid in that context. If you required publicity then please seek it elsewhere. I am currently trying to avoid it, but I won't shirk from it when I see something as daft as that! Giacomo 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, holding off for your further feedback (and I hope that of the others). We need to get this thing on the road soon. Please note proposed shorter durations and earlier start than last year. Tony(talk)09:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The file listed as MTB102.JPG is incorrect as it shows HSL102, a high speed launch and NOT MTB102, a torpedo boat. If you wish to see pictures of MTB102 please go to www.mtb102.com. There you will see the difference. Please delete your file so that the world is not misled any more.
Thank you,
Richard Basey, Chairman, MTB102 Trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.104.17 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This[28] was very poor judgment. Admins blocking admins with no warning? How is that setting a good example? Or is there some history of warnings for language on Pedro's talkpage that I am unaware of? --Elonka01:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Replace this image1.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Dear friend, thank you for your guidelines. But some important revisions had been missed by your redirection that I restored them. Maziargh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Replace this imageb.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Replace this imageb.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Geni, please don't remove important material from a content policy without discussion, and in particular don't revert when someone restores it. There's a presumption in favour of stability at these policies, particularly BLP. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS02:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments in the ANI thread, do you understand all the points of policy that you violated with this block and will you refrain from doing so in the future?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ridiculous. Unblock him now. The guy was busy working. He snapped at an annoying pettycrat. So what. Try to exercise some discernment. Malleus doesn't bight newbies (unless they're obvious arce holes), he's one of the most helpful editors on the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment and the following one are quite mild; though an immediate block may be within your discretion, a block 10 full hours after the fact is excessive. Will you consider unblocking? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, there was nothing that suggested he was acting like he owned the article, and in fact no-one has subsequently agreed with Kingturtle. WRT the article, all Malleus did was point out one reason why surnames were not used. And he affirmed that he objected to the proposal, but did not direct Kingturtle not to do it. I'd suggest an unblock is in order. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your block of Malleus 10 hours after the fact was such an obvious violation of the principle that "blocks should not be punitive" as to call into question your ability or willingness to abide by core policies. Voluntarily resigning your adminship would prevent further damage the credibility of the administrative corps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't resign. Learn from this. You made a very wrong call. All commentators have tried to explain it to you. You can't see it. You can't self-correct. You can't be trusted with the right to block other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern
but I think you know that. My advice is to accept what many editors are telling you: it was an ill-conceived block. No need to resign, don't take the criticism personally, learn from it and try not to repeat the mistake. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a right to you're opinions, but if you're saying that you don't intend to change your actions, then add my name to the list of those that think you need to resign. tools are to be used as the community directs.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've had it adequately explained why the block was far outside the communities approval. The fact that you apparently unwilling to accept this only saddens me. I dislike abuse of the communities trust.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. The diff Geni is complaining about there was posted at 3:26 this morning, almost 10 hours before I was blocked, and which Geni had already used as the excuse to block me.[30] This is has the hallmarks of a witch hunt. It's very clear to me that Geni is not a fit person to be an administrator and ought to resign while she can still do so with some dignity. MalleusFatuorum20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You caused the issue, nobody else. That you continue to refuse to acknowledge that simply demonstrates that you are not a fit person to be an administrator. MalleusFatuorum20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, your continuation is compounding the original mistake, your inability to accept and apologize for your actions is now the ongoing issue, I was wrong to block you - there is no community support for my action and I won't be using my admin tools to apply that sort of editing restriction again. You still appear to support your actions and appear unable to see the community position and in fact the policy position also - well that is two recent uses and rejections of your administrative actions - if it becomes three imo you can expect the community to request your authority removed as no longer supported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 Don't think that because you haven't wound up blocked for this that your comments at that talk page were in any way acceptable Malleus. While they may not have been so bad as to warrant a block, you were certainly pushing things too far there. I don't really understand what leads you to press "save page" on a comment which has the sole purpose of belittling another editor. And Geni is of course correct that the block was preventive (the seriousness of what it was preventing can be debated, but it clearly was stopping you from restoring those comments). As to witch hunting, I don't understand what leads you to link what's happening to you in this case with that at all. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were deliberately provocative. I suggest that you might usefully consider spending a little time thinking about your own contributions here, which are not altogether positive. MalleusFatuorum22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're muddling me (Kingpin) with Kingturtle. However, either way I don't really see what was provocative about Kingturtle's comments, unless there is some history here I'm not aware of? - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was confusing you, my apologies. What was provocative? Well, for starters "Here's what I'm going to do unless you can persuade me that I shouldn't", followed by ignoring all the reasons why he shouldn't. I could go on, but what would be the point? There are none so blind as those who will not see. MalleusFatuorum01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :). We seem to be reading into this differently, personally I would commend him for seeking other's opinions on the talk page before making the changes (something all too few editors do these days), and it seems like it was an especially good thing in this case, where there were good reasons against the changes. I don't think he had an attitude of simply ignoring you (in fact he said your initial answer was "sufficient" enough, presumably to convince him the changes shouldn't be made), although he did largely ignore your personal comments on him, which again I think is a good thing. Still, that said, I don't much see the point of continuing debate on this, as I personally am happy with the way things stand at the moment (you not blocked for this, Geni still an admin, and Kingturtle apparently unperturbed) - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite the way it is, which is why I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the outcome. The final score is that Geni gets away scot free again after making yet another bad block and I end up with another daft block. That doesn't seem anything like satisfactory to me. MalleusFatuorum02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. that's that not "all I'm worried about", or indeed what I'm worried about at all. How many times do you need it to be spelled out to you? MalleusFatuorum02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You added an out of process block to a contributor for a rejected personal position unsupported in policy and guidelines and rejected quickly out of hand by the community consensus. This action was a almost duplicate action of your using the tools out of process in Dec and was also rejected and overturned - as I advised to you - you do not want you hat trick of such actions. As I said - it is imo your inability to see your mistake and your continuation of the disruption you have and are continuing to create and the fact that it is a repeat pattern that is now the issue. The fact that Malleus is able to replace the edits you removed without any user reverting is reflective of your error, not reflective that you were right and that Malleus should have been blocked Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your just not getting it - you have made 17 contributory edits to the wikipedia in this session - the first thing you did was to block Malleus and the other 16 have been simply fallout from that disruption. If you are happy with that I disagree. Clearly you don't think you did anything worthy of apologizing and you continue to assert you were correct and that you will continue to use your tools in the same way if you like, but I don't think you will like the obvious outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to add heat to the thread above which seems to have gotten side-tracked, but I do believe your block was wrong and unhelpful. I accept that you did what you did in good faith, and I do not think you should resign for it, but I do think you should learn from it. In a situation like this, often just acknowledging your error can defuse a lot of the annoyance. Your call of course. --John (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not the Daily Mail is a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG; and removing a dozen or so of these references in just a few minutes are not the actions of an experienced editor. Your edits have been reverted. memphisto17:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The post above was not a reply to your post on my talk page, they were simultaneous edits. With regard to the Daily Mail I see no policy against using it as a source; however the quality of any source should always be considered when using it in an article, while similar consideration should be given before removing said sources. memphisto19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the position the Daily Mail occupies within the UK newspaper marketplace, however as much as I dislike it, I still think it qualifies as reliable per WP:NEWSORG. memphisto01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but I just thought I would give my $0.02 (or £0.02) on this. It's impossible to say whether a whole news organisation is reliable or not - it completely depends on what is being sourced to it. The removal that bought me here was at John Clark (actor) where the DM was used as a reference, but only as to what the subject had told the newspaper reporter. In this case, why should we suspect that they are incorrect? While we shouldn't use the DM for gossip or science (even then there are exceptions) it is completely ok to use in other situations. The opposite applies in other cases were supposedly reliable sources publish shoddy articles that we can establish are unreliable as they contradict other sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of banned books. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Additionally you are falsely claiming "long-standing consensus" where no such consensus exists. Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
--Cyclopiatalk 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
