Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 18 May 2009

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Jay32183, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Reyk _YO! 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

May, 2009

I have asked you to stop disruptive image tagging. Yet you are repeatedly re-tagging the image and have called me a vandal. Surely you know that kind of behavior is against the behavioral rules, e.g. WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EW. You should also review WP:VANDAL to understand what vandalism is, and that it is not acceptable to accuse good faith editors of vandalism. Please desist at once, and self-revert your latest tag. I would ask you to handle this in a more mature way among collaborative editors. I see you're also edit warring against other editors on disputed image tagging as well. The normal routine, as with any speedy deletion nomination, is that if an editor removes the deletion tag in good faith, and you still believe the item is deletable, you can nominate the item for a deletion discussion, in this case I believe Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. If you won't follow process we can take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Final warning - you have had plenty of time to reform your behavior here. Yet you refuse. You have removed a source statement and non-free use rationale in support of gaming to have an image deleted. You are at WP:3RR on reverting a disputed image tag, and you are accusing good faith editors of vandalism. Please revert your latest reversion, and stop now, or I will report you to AN/I and you will quite possibly be blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

I have reported your recent editing behavior to AN/I, here. Please direct all comments on the subject there now. Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on File:Szapinka.jpg. 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. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay32183 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is not an edit war. The image still has no source, so tagging it for speedy deletion is not edit warring, untagging it is vandalism

Decline reason:

The 3RR policy was designed to prohibit disruption, and that's what this edit war constituted. When an editor removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, the appropriate course of action is to discuss it with the editor or take the page to a deletion discussion. Edit warring with multiple users to keep the tag on the page is a unhelpful exercise, as the same outcome (if it is truly speedy deletion material) could be achieved through the less disruptive means of posting to ANI or IFD. I'll also quote from the deletion policy: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page... Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions... Someguy1221 (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jay32183 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again, not an edit war. No source and no license cannot be disputed, and are not to be taken to FFD. It says so in the instructions. Removing a no source tag without adding a source, or a no license tag without adding a license is not contesting deletion, it is vandalism.

Decline reason:

No, it's not vandalism, and yes it is an edit war. Your continued inability to assume good faith and treat editors trying to maintain the encyclopedia as no different from common vandals is what is troubling here. You reverted multiple times, and there is no exception that covers this at WP:3RR. If you return to this disruptive behavior when your block expires, you may expect to be blocked again, for a longer period. Mangojuice 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Edit warring is edit warring, regardless of whether there's a source on the image or not. You were also warned about it and continued. The license was changed to satisfy the image and that still wasn't good enough for you. Further, reverting people's edits and calling them "vandalism", when they clearly were not, is just downright rude. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 09:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that numerous other users, acting in apparently good faith, were asking only for more discussion of the sort a blunt speedy tag cannot allow; if you're so convinced you're right, why are you so hostile to this request? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to discuss. No source is no source, no license is no license. This is exactly what speedy deletion is for. Images that don't indicate source, license, or permission are deleted, no exceptions. Working to delete those image is a positive contribution, while working to maintain them is a negative contribution. Removing a speedy deletion tag in such an instance is acting in bad faith. I won't revert anymore, but I am right. Jay32183 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce

I just want to say that I very much see your point about the Aubrey and Aundrea image I uploaded. While I still see some validity in keeping the Aubrey O'Day singing "At Last" image, I see your point there as well. I do not agree with you at all about images like the Reese and Zach Slater controversial kiss one (which has a lot of critical commentary about that kiss due to that very imagery having upset a lot of people), found in the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article, in the same way that I would not feel that the image of Aerith's death in the Aerith Gainsborough article should be deleted (which also has a lot of critical commentary about that scene). However, I would like to call a truce between us instead of this back and forth that resembles bickering on our parts toward each other. I am usually not too rude in my replies; it is just that I felt you were being a little rude to me and I was annoyed by having a few of "my images" recently nominated for deletion. Seeing your past history with incivility, what you stated to me was not all that bad. And I am not holding your past warnings against you.

Basically, I am saying that I get your point in some parts of the discussions we have had with each other, and would like to move on. I apologize if you felt offended by my words. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion nominations

I have reverted a number of your recent image deletion nominations. You have been nominating a number of old images for deletion that were appropriate per the policies of the time, based on technical noncompliance with newer requirements. When those images were uploaded, the uploader's public domain tag was considered a sufficient claim that they were the copyright holder and intended to give their copyright to the image to the public domain. Frankly, nominating those for speedy deletion seems silly and misguided, and a deletion discussion would also be the wrong way to go. If you do wish to go through Misplaced Pages's old images to see if they should be purged for noncompliance with new policy, I suggest you start at Village Pump or some other central forum rather than nominating miscellaneous images for deletion. Please do be careful and work with other editors on your policy concerns. Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)