→Req of clarification: reply |
|||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
I hope you will produce an answers to my specific questions, due to the reasons presented above. Best, [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
I hope you will produce an answers to my specific questions, due to the reasons presented above. Best, [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus, just like any other user, has more than one way to seek admin help in dealing with the unblock. Not only he has his talk page, but also email and IRC. He chose the third option, where he discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that, and checkusers who can decided not to run a checkuser due to possible violations of EU law. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:24, 13 March 2008
Current time: Friday, May 31, 2024, 23:21 (UTC) | Number of articles on English Wikipedia: 6,829,771 |
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
---|
Flag Dude
I created Flag Dude a long time ago and at one point I forgot the password. I just started editing with my current account. Also, is there a way to take ALL THE FREAKIN' WORK I DID PUTTING ON MORE THAN 50 KILOBYTES OF FLAGS!!!!: to a Commons page? If so, tell me. Tascha96|Talk 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, why didn't you say so. Anyways, what I can do for you is one of two things. First, I can move everything to your new userpage now. I will have to create a subpage. As for moving the work to the Commons, I need to copy the code from the last edit, then move it there. What title do you suggest? I am an sysop at the Commons too, so I can easily do everything. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for the Commons title, I think Flag Dude again would be good. D YOU need the code from the last edit? If so, I'm not sure how to get the code. If not, will....that's good then. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!! User:Tascha96 Talk 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't need the code, I can access it thru deleted edits. Plus, the code here works at the Commons. I will do it once I get home around 9-ish PST. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, great. I also live in the PST area, so I won't be able to work on it until tomorrow. User:Tascha96|User talk:Tascha96 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Tascha96/Flag Dude. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, great. I also live in the PST area, so I won't be able to work on it until tomorrow. User:Tascha96|User talk:Tascha96 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't need the code, I can access it thru deleted edits. Plus, the code here works at the Commons. I will do it once I get home around 9-ish PST. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for the Commons title, I think Flag Dude again would be good. D YOU need the code from the last edit? If so, I'm not sure how to get the code. If not, will....that's good then. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!! User:Tascha96 Talk 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica article deletion
The article was previously deleted under consensus for being poorly sourced. It has been several months, and the version you deleted had 2 television news sources, several newspapers, and print magazines. Please restore it so it may be put up for AfD vote. Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also please note it has been around a year since the last AfD. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to let ArbCom sort this out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can the original stub go back up before then? So that non-administrators viewing the arbchat discussion will have some perspective? Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? Can't we be civil and follow deletion policy on this? --Truthseeq (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am being civil with you. The article has been deleted in 2006 and stayed dead since. It was remade because another sysop remade it, not knowing about the previous issues with the article. All attempts at an DRV in the past have failed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- 2006 is two years ago. It was deleted for non-notability. The previous incarnations were obviously worthy of deletion. This one was meticulously well-sourced. Please be civil, restore the stub and set an AfD. --Truthseeq (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll restore it now, but I expect it to be gone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- 2006 is two years ago. It was deleted for non-notability. The previous incarnations were obviously worthy of deletion. This one was meticulously well-sourced. Please be civil, restore the stub and set an AfD. --Truthseeq (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am being civil with you. The article has been deleted in 2006 and stayed dead since. It was remade because another sysop remade it, not knowing about the previous issues with the article. All attempts at an DRV in the past have failed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? Can't we be civil and follow deletion policy on this? --Truthseeq (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can the original stub go back up before then? So that non-administrators viewing the arbchat discussion will have some perspective? Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to let ArbCom sort this out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent DRV filed, failed again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Previous closure at DRV
Pay attention dude! The other MFD was closed with exactly the same rationale as I had provided. This MFD is very much more a no-brainer. Could you please not re-open disruptive MFD's? Thank you VERY much. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Given the user we are dealing with, it might be a good idea to keep it open. The last one occurred months ago, so mind as well let it serve out it's course. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- To document our earlier discussion: This would probably set enough of a precedent to kill the MFD prerequisites section. That would be bad, since that was initially negotiated as part of MFD. You are essentially allowing an impromptu policy/project vote on MFD, with the additional risk that (historic) documentation becomes lost. This had already been demonstrated to be a Very Bad Thing on VFD, long long ago.
- You proposed to at least let the MFD run for a few hours? I still don't entirely understand the reasoning, but alright, as I don't want to edit- or wheel-war. How do you propose we proceed after that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to talk, btw :-) I don't think zenwhat would be too angry at you. He's not crazy, just... he tries to speedread too much. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's no big deal. I don't think it will kill the section or the rule. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone appears to be ignoring it wholesale (including you ^^;; ). Which means it has effectively become a dead letter. I normally don't mind, because it's a healthy sign of consensus changing, but in this case, it's veering off towards a cliff, basically. Oops. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Do we have binding precedents here? I thought that for the most part, xFD operated under rules kinda like Article 59 of the ICJ statute. Anyhoo, I've seen a lot of lame MFD nominations these days. Maybe we should start voting speedy keep for that kind of stuff? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your call. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, are we pretty much allowed to vote however we want, or will I be considered an ass if I vote outside of the realm of what policy/guidelines would suggest? Can't people get blocked for trolling for doing that? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, No. Only if your opinions are also outside the realm of aiding the encyclopedia. It's a bit of a judgment call, though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Expanding on that: If you actually manage to convince/persuade others and form a consensus, anything goes. But the difficulty of doing so can vary widely. What works in one place might fail elsewhere. It takes a bit of "getting a feel for it". I've been here for a couple of years, but still occasionally blow a call. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, are we pretty much allowed to vote however we want, or will I be considered an ass if I vote outside of the realm of what policy/guidelines would suggest? Can't people get blocked for trolling for doing that? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your call. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Do we have binding precedents here? I thought that for the most part, xFD operated under rules kinda like Article 59 of the ICJ statute. Anyhoo, I've seen a lot of lame MFD nominations these days. Maybe we should start voting speedy keep for that kind of stuff? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone appears to be ignoring it wholesale (including you ^^;; ). Which means it has effectively become a dead letter. I normally don't mind, because it's a healthy sign of consensus changing, but in this case, it's veering off towards a cliff, basically. Oops. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's no big deal. I don't think it will kill the section or the rule. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's has been closed by another user, so all of this is moot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hah! Fully vindicated yet again! Twice in so many days! \o/
- Oh hmm... well yes. Except for the part where you reverted me to keep the MFD open. That's still sort of setting a 'precedent'-ish ... <scratches head> :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Precedents" are irrelevant. If any user thinks something is a good idea, they can do it. If any user thinks something is a bad idea, they can undo it. If they disagree, they discuss it. If they'd like to edit-war, canvass, or otherwise attempt to push their edit through by force, they can do that too if they like, although they will probably be blocked unless they're well-respected administrators.
The ability to arbitrarily close an MfD early or not isn't important, because it depends on how it's done. It can be done by users attempting to shut down MfD's they're worried will be successful. It can also be used to shut down inappropriate MfDs, which may lead to silly flamewars.
There is no intrinsic authority here with particular actions or particular users. It depends on what they're doing and why. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Late reply re Obuibo Mbstpo and binding precedents. Wikipedia does not have binding precedents. However, consensus does shift around, and you can often "read" what the consensus is or is changing to before it actually gets written down, with a little experience. By ignoring a rule and reverting me, Zscout could be read to be shifting consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I objected also to closing the MfD early. I've been aware of that page for some time, and always intended to try to do something about it--I think its a standing invitation to spam and to violations of NPOV. I would like to try to shift consensus on this one, & would appreciate the chance to argue it. I dont expect to win the argument this time, but I want the opportunity to try to persuade people, for it may bear fruit in the future. Dont assume that because one person introduces an XfD, and is prepared to edit war over it, that there is nobody who will support it in good faith and -- possibly--even for good reasons. How can anyone assume that the MfD nominator would necessarily stand alone? I dont want to revert the close yet again, of course, I think it will be better to go to Deletion Review, unless one of the people who closed it is prepared to revert their own closure. As a general rule, premature closes of matters where there is either some real disagreement of some doubts about the motivation of behavior (justified or unjustified) produce less drama if they are simply let run. As you should all see by now, that's the case this time. Among the virtues of following procedure is that it avoids complaints that you didn't. DGG (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've finally discovered that "there" is "here". Argh!
- I objected also to closing the MfD early. I've been aware of that page for some time, and always intended to try to do something about it--I think its a standing invitation to spam and to violations of NPOV. I would like to try to shift consensus on this one, & would appreciate the chance to argue it. I dont expect to win the argument this time, but I want the opportunity to try to persuade people, for it may bear fruit in the future. Dont assume that because one person introduces an XfD, and is prepared to edit war over it, that there is nobody who will support it in good faith and -- possibly--even for good reasons. How can anyone assume that the MfD nominator would necessarily stand alone? I dont want to revert the close yet again, of course, I think it will be better to go to Deletion Review, unless one of the people who closed it is prepared to revert their own closure. As a general rule, premature closes of matters where there is either some real disagreement of some doubts about the motivation of behavior (justified or unjustified) produce less drama if they are simply let run. As you should all see by now, that's the case this time. Among the virtues of following procedure is that it avoids complaints that you didn't. DGG (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Closing the MFD early is correct, see also the discussion at User talk:Kaiba#talk_board.
- If you have issues with the reward board, discuss those issues on the talk page, and attempt to apply a {{historical}} to the page.
- The MFD should not go to DRV, as the MFD was closed correctly, as per procedure.
- The closing was not premature.
- I agree about the virtues of following procedure. The correct procedure for an MFD on policy/guideline/essay/project/deletion pages is to close the MFD and warn or block the person submitting such an MFD.
Why?
- Why is the correct procedure to close the MFD? Because it is not permitted to nominate those pages for deletion. And why is that? Well, if you don't, you get all kinds of wonderful mind bending recursions, loops, and catch-22 situations in the policy and deletion system. Have you ever had to enforce a policy for which the policy page was deleted, for instance? I have, and had to get a steward to back me up! %-(
- To prevent such crazy things from happening, (among other things) VFD was split into AFD and MFD. MFD could then more easily be patrolled for potentially insane situations. (And trust me, they get to the insane drama stage very quickly if you leave them be).
- If you don't accept the insanity approach, perhaps you may accept the hypocrisy angle. Why do you suggest that we should keep open a consensus discussion, that is discussing the deletion of a consensus discussion (the talk page and history page of any of the above classes of page can be said to count as a consensus discussion on policy). No matter which way you choose argue your reply, you're likely to get tied up in your own arguments.
- If you don't accept the insanity or the hypocrisy arguments, we can try the argumentum ad absurdum. Imagine trying to delete a deletion discussion (for the ultimate in twisty situations). This really happened, and then there were deletion of deletion of deletion discussions, and drvs of deletion of drv discussions, etc. You can recurse infinitely, and certain very silly bureaucratic type persons actually tried to follow that approach. They ultimately lost, because anyone with common sense saw what was going on (hundreds and hundreds of comments about essentially hot air).
- "Fortunately", the deletion of a project "only" goes to a depth of 3. You discuss(1) the reopening of the closed discussion(2) about the policy discussion(3). Well, unless the project lists notability criteria or other things related to deletion. Then the fun can begin... ;-)
- If the depth and breadth of the stupidity of opening MFD discussions on policy/guidelines/essays/projects/deletions is not yet fully documented, we shall have to document it fully. Don't you agree?
- In the mean time, follow procedure, go to the reward board talk page, and try to discuss marking it {{historical}} there.
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I reserve the right to expand on this topic even further! :-P
- There are more people wanting this to stay open than wanting to close it, so I am going to reopen this again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you are ignoring all rules, (including WP:MFD and wikipedia is not a majority-based democracy), I would like to request (further) rationale from you, if you have any to provide, as per WP:WIARM. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are more people wanting this to stay open than wanting to close it, so I am going to reopen this again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I reserve the right to expand on this topic even further! :-P
As I told you already, there are many people who do not agree with your close. As an non-admin, I have the ability under WP:DPR#NAC to reopen any discussion closed by a non-admin. 2 admins and at least 3 other users wanted the discussion to continue, only you want the close it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. It is policy to close it. I want to close it because I agree with the policy (I was there when it was formed). The policy represents earlier consensus among many Wikipedians. Consensus is often a compromise. The compromise was reached to allow the deletion of misc items. But we are not policy wonks. If people no longer agree with the compromise, they can simply renegotiate it. I am now asking you why you are ignoring this policy, do you indeed wish to alter it? If so, is the above your entire reasoning? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went to the MFD page, all I saw there was "maybe" "could be" so there is nothing set in stone over there. However, I am happy with the MFD running now, it should be done by Thursday or so. My reasoning above is it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- So on the one hand you're (sorry, being frank ^^;;) an admin violating policy, and on the other you're let off by a technicality in wording. Not good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went to the MFD page, all I saw there was "maybe" "could be" so there is nothing set in stone over there. However, I am happy with the MFD running now, it should be done by Thursday or so. My reasoning above is it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
Note that the reward board is essentially similar in nature to the above, and similar reasoning applies. (Also, the same reasoning applies here as for esperanza and ama)
The "probably" looks like my writing. I'll just reword and tighten. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done: please comment on my recent edits to MFD policy. As your current actions actually work in the entirely opposite direction, you may wish to remove that section entirely. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Hardening_the_language <-Discussion here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright. We had a bit of a chat and a cooldown. In this case the situation is/was terribly unfair on you, as you're caught in the middle. :-/ Have fun editing in mainspace. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hank Worden photo
I took the photo of Hank Worden which you deleted, and I authorized its usage in the Commons. It may have shown up on Ebay at some time, but it's my photo and its use on WP is authorized. Can you replace it? I'd rather not go to the trouble, having once already done so. If not, I will. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then scan the original you have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask why I have to do the work when you undid work I'd already done? A scan is a scan, is it not? I'll do it (putting a new copy into Commons) if I must, but I find it quite tedious, especially having already done it once. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because we have a lot of people taking images from eBay and claiming it as their own. We remove those all of the time. Plus, if you have the original image that is large, not only it will rid of the watermark from eBay, but it proves to me that you are the real owner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's an Ebay watermark? Okay, something's weird here. What I posted to Commons was not from Ebay, it was from my personal collection. I was Hank's roommate for four years and have lots of personal photos. I'll scan something good and post it to Commons. That will end the controversy (I hope). I'm not sure how something with an Ebay watermark got on there. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am an administrator at the Commons, so I will check it out and see what happened. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's an Ebay watermark? Okay, something's weird here. What I posted to Commons was not from Ebay, it was from my personal collection. I was Hank's roommate for four years and have lots of personal photos. I'll scan something good and post it to Commons. That will end the controversy (I hope). I'm not sure how something with an Ebay watermark got on there. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because we have a lot of people taking images from eBay and claiming it as their own. We remove those all of the time. Plus, if you have the original image that is large, not only it will rid of the watermark from eBay, but it proves to me that you are the real owner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask why I have to do the work when you undid work I'd already done? A scan is a scan, is it not? I'll do it (putting a new copy into Commons) if I must, but I find it quite tedious, especially having already done it once. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the Commons and the image wasn't there at all. Was it there as another name over there? The Commons and Wikipedia are two entirely different projects. Anyways, what I mean by an eBay watermark is if you looked at the image at the bottom right corner, there was a small mark that was placed there. That mark is commonly seen on photos at eBay. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OSCE logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:OSCE logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Michxel
I suggest you look at User:Michxel. He's doing many a bizarre page move... He seems to be creating a nonsense article, then redirects it to another and then another. -WarthogDemon 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Taken care of. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
revert war on Commons is f-up content on Wikipedia -- flag of SADR/Polisaria vs. Western Sahara
Help. As a Commons admin and Wikipedia user you are in a position to restore order here. Presently, I discovered that it's impossible to find the SADR flag on Wikipedia where you expect it, including in the infobox where it continues to be described yet the picture over the description is the UN flag. Yes, everywhere on the Wikipedia, the SADR flag has been replaced by the UN flag, perhaps as an unwitting consequence of other Commons renames, now subject to edit warring of uploads.
I am agnostic as to which flag belongs in the infobox of Western Sahara, if any, but I am vehemently opposed to a state of Wikipedia, where graphical content is blatantly misrepresenting what it's supposed to be depicting according to accompanying text.
Flag of SADR.svg or something along those lines should exist on Commons independently of Flag of Western Sahara.svg -- which would save us from idiotic outcomes... The revert war is in the upload of the Flag of Western Sahara.svg. I noticed it because mysteriously the UN flag appeared in teh Kosovo international reaction article in place of the Polisario flag in the table. That's not right -- we are describing what SADR people said, not what some UN-flagged entity has said. Please fix it if you can. --Mareklug talk 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has been like this for a while now. Even on the Commons, people are screwing around with the files. I am going to look at this now and see what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Flag was back to the correct version and locked by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
College Logo
What's the deal with not allowing college logos on user badges (like {{User Gustavus}})? I can understand not using a corporate logo (i.e. someone who makes money from their brands), but colleges and universities have no financial ramifications either way from logo use on a webpage (i.e. colleges make their money from donors and students paying to go there). Don't know about anyone else, but my college's financial windfalls from all things with their logo was so small as to be ridiculous anyway (I'm guessing it is the same most places, else the college would be out of business, or fraudulent). If you don't mind, I'd like to see Wikipedia's written policy on this - having the logos would indeed spruce up those templates. From where I sit, seems like that would fall under the fair use stuff that governs other images (oh, and one more note - I consider the template to be one document, regardless of the number of users who attach it to their pages; kind of like a magazine being one volume/issue per time period, regardless of readership). Nickersonl (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is our written policy. Pretty much fair use images can only be used in articles and if found everywhere else, we will remove them. Userpages do not have exceptions. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Point 9 is the specific mention on location of the images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why this outing of anybody?
Please if we could refrain from personal details, like this one. People from former "East" block are especially careful about such things. Even frightened. Please do not do this any more. I taught we were coleagues. We do not have to go this way.
Also such harsh criticism that I do not deserve. Especially for the issue of the Irish CoA. I just offered help and proven a point. Such details should be included, even if strings remain white.
Imbris (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing was outed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would rather if you should delete that part which is obvious informing of the general public about certain information that - not a lot of people know how to get - it is up to every single user to become so smart to search for such info. There should not be any help with it. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even use special tools at all, I just said Commons user X does this a lot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would rather if you should delete that part which is obvious informing of the general public about certain information that - not a lot of people know how to get - it is up to every single user to become so smart to search for such info. There should not be any help with it. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Bot activity
I was going over the list of bots and noticed that Zbot370 (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz talk 06:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Responded. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Graph
Would you or be able to update this [1] graph with the 2008 figure (2008 population was 142,000,000 million)? Thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Provide me with a source and it can be done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- "According to preliminary estimates, the resident population of the Russian Federation on 1 January 2008 was 142 million people"
Req of clarification
Hi Zscout. Thanks for the involvement in History of Lithuania. It is always interesting to see new editor on this page. However I would like to speak about different event involving your sysop rights again. Speaking particularly about user:Piotrus unblock and motives to do so, as stated in unblocking by you: I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out. I am the person who filled the complain, due to persistent edit warring of particular contributor (involving multiply pages), which is lasting for great time now. Therefore I feel responsible and if my report was somehow improper it should be corrected. Plus per whole my participation in this project I did not witnessed such rationale. Due to these reasons I would like to ask these questions:
- c) There was placed user: TigerShark contest of the block. There is no, nor on user’s in question talk page, nor 3RR original board, nor on WP:AN, WP:ANI .
- b) did another administrator was consulted before you took such action.
- c) There exactly 3RR policy suggests that there is made an exclusion from the rule due to “dealing with IP edits”
- d) Which exact IP account’s (is it IP 62.212.208.65 ? ) contribs you identified as “possible vandalism”. If it is **.***.208.65, I reviewed those contribs and there is nothing which could imply involvement of vandalism.
I hope you will produce an answers to my specific questions, due to the reasons presented above. Best, M.K. (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- 3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus, just like any other user, has more than one way to seek admin help in dealing with the unblock. Not only he has his talk page, but also email and IRC. He chose the third option, where he discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that, and checkusers who can decided not to run a checkuser due to possible violations of EU law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)