Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 25 September 2007 (→Wrigley Field). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

And the stains coming from my blood / Tell me go back home

Why the secrecy

How come you don't want people to know you're an admin?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are under the mistaken assumption that I don't want people to know that I am an admin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Who can really know what's in your heart of hearts? But why are you behaving as if you don't want people to know you're an admin?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As there is no way to "hide" that I am an administrator, I disagree that I am "behaving" as if I did not want to be one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tove birthdate

Not sure what you're suggesting here: "Remove the assertion". What I'm saying is that there is 'a' source for the DOB and it is as good as any other until challenged. I have a copy of my own birth certificate to hand but it's only as correct as the information my father gave to the Registrar. And I was attempting to minimise any argument from User:Nazz. --Rodhullandemu 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I have ditched that comment. I misinterpreted your post, apologies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent intervention in this; User:Nazz would appear to be the defendant in the court case he cites, if I read him correctly, and is looking for vindication of his position. However much as I may sympathise, WP is not where he should be looking for this. I know you & I have had our differences in the past, and you have had your own, er, issues to deal with. In the meantime, I've become a lot more savvy about the ins and outs of editing WP. Thanks for the early heads up. I don't mind learning the hard way. --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Rock Ranger

I'm missing something I read WP:NOT and get that in the body of articles if a name can be removed without compromising the article they should be. However I don't see that applying to picture captions. I'm a photojournalist, I write a lot of picture captions, it seems reasonable to include the names of the individuals. Your edits look mechanical - the first one left a caption that doesn't scan. Any objection to my putting the names back? Trapper 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite an objection. We do not put names of non-notable individuals on our Project if we do not have to, and captions of images should only describe the image as it is relevant to the article. The article is about Black Rock Rangers in the generic, not whatever specific individuals happen to be illustrated in the images. Look around, this is not done anywhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll fix the mess you left with your edits - if you're going to be the style police please at least make the edits scan. Trapper 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrigley Field

User:Wahkeenah was my old user, which I asked to have blocked. I began anew as this one. This makes the third time someone has deleted that image without explanation. At least do me the courtesy of explaining what the issue is before you continue lecturing me about allegedly violating policies. Baseball Bugs 04:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, I uploaded that image a year and a half ago and no one had a problem with it. Now suddenly, with no explanation, someone deletes it. That is unfair, and offensive. Baseball Bugs 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, every "fair use" argument has to do with copyright. What's special about this one? Baseball Bugs 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you done? Image copyright policy has grown more strict with time and for good reason at that. Trust me, you are not the only one that has had images that were OK x number of years ago deleted, it has happened to me, too. Thems the breaks. With this specific image, there was no specific source for each of the component images, nor was there specific rationales for each of the images, which would be needed. Sorry, but this is policy. Period. As the project grows, we continue to move away from copyrighted material as much as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then when does fair use ever apply? And why didn't you ASK FOR INFORMATION instead of just deleting it? Your attitude is offensive. Baseball Bugs 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image information must be provided up front (and the information provided in the original description said two thirds of the image was "found" at google images, a "free site"). Again, policy. If you have a problem with policy, perhaps you should reconsider contributing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Every case I've seen of questions about images have been preceded by a friendly posting to a user page asking for further information. Since when are you exempt from performing that courtesy? Baseball Bugs 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a courtesy not a policy. I work within policies to best serve the Project and keep prohibited material off. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You serve only your desire to delete things and take a "screw you" attitude toward us lowly peons. By an odd coincidence, I got just such a friendly warning on my old page. You apparently feel no need to be courteous. That fits with your general "my way or the highway" attitude, like your refusal to set up a user page, for example. Well, I have good relations with good admins. As for you... we're done. Go, and never darken my towels again. Baseball Bugs 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)