Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
:::Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's [[Help:Diff|diffs]] and I'll write up the report? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|★]]</small> 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:11, 16 October 2007
Hiding {{fact}} and similar templates
You do this by adding the line
.Inline-Template {display:none}
to your personal CSS styling file, Special:Mypage/monobook.css. (Sorry, I noticed the conversation on User talk:Into The Fray and decided that even though it was a bit late, you might want to know the answer.) Hope that helps! --ais523 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Even at this late hour, this is very valuable information. Thank you for showing me this. / edg ☺ ★ 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Templates
Thanks for the advice. Lord Crayak 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't add a fair use rationale for this image, it is likely to be deleted. Here are the handy templates: {{Album cover fur}}, {{Non-free album cover}}. Usually, both are needed.
Edit Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg if you need a quick example of how to fill in {{Album cover fur}}. / edg ☺ ★ 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
question : image
thanks for your message - - - i've seen there are 100000000s of album covers with the simple "fair use box"... you mean i have to make the "fur" as well for, for instance, Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg ? kernitou talk 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg could use one as well. The only exceptions would be art that is free use (or otherwise GFDL-compatible), which practically no album covers are. Wikipedia is enforcing non-free content rules more strictly now that it did a year ago. Legally this is understandable and necessary, but it has caused much frustration for image uploaders.
- For other non-free images (musician promo photos, for instance), use {{Non-free media rationale}}. (example) / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
santana : done kernitou talk 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good FUR. There is a possible second problem with the Santana cover.
- Album covers greater than 315px longest @ 72dpi are considered more than is needed for fair use, and may be deleted. Some discussion of this is on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b. This is especially a concern for album covers because anything big enough to be printed out for a satisfactory-looking CD cover can be claimed to aid piracy, and the record industry is famously litigious. I degraded a bunch of Pink Floyd album covers to address exactly that concern — an item was [tagged for deletion simply for being too big.
- Having to do this sucks of course, but since the Santana image has been tagged for deletion once, it's probably in someone's watchlist. In the event it gets tagged for size, I have some instructions on Image:Pinkfloyd_50.jpg#Resolution_degrade.
- Sincere thanks for your contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- thanks a lot for your helpful help - - - i had a look at the floyd covers so, from now on, i will stay under the 315 rule ('s ok for me: if i need a bigger cover, i can find it on the net anywhere) + i will put a fur on michelle, oops kernitou talk 12:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- santana: done (310x310): too bad, the details are so great!!! kernitou talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- michelle: done kernitou talk 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why, yes
I would like some help, if you don't mind. When you have time, of course. Jiminezwaldorf 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember me?
I don't know if you remember, but a few months back me and you had a dispute over the international broadcasters section on the Scrubs article. Anyway, i was just going back over my talk page looking over old disputes etc, and i realised that i was in fact extremely rude, hostile and accusatory towards you, accusing you of cheating, manipulating etc. I am so very sorry that i was so rude towards you, i'm ashamed i said some of the things i did, and although i could make the excuse that with the stress of work/exams etc it's justifiable, even so, i still feel bad. Therefore i apologise for every single rude statement or implication i made towards you. Sorry--Jac16888 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for messaging me. No hard feelings whatsoever. I'd actually gotten so used to hostile correspondence that none of it seemed far from ordinary. This more than compensates. / edg ☺ ★ 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
141. Was rude to Edgarde- just kidding. Thank you for your reply, i really don't know what came over me those few weeks, i was snapping at everyone, and i'm sorry that included you. Not any more though, i'm new and improved. Sorry again, and thank you--Jac16888 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Proper Canvassing for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
Why don't you put your vote in support of this Category? Vote Keep so it won't get deleted. Thanks, --Ludvikus 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please consider Wikipedia's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg ☺ ★ 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was not aware of any such Wiki prohibition. I'm going to research that right now. Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Rule against canvassing?
Had no idea that existed. If so, I stand corrected. Thank you. --Ludvikus 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Exception(s) to the rule
I've checked the Rule. It seems that you're mistaken in its application to me. It is not an Absolute rule. In fact, it's very clear that there are circumstances in which canvassing is proper, and good for Wikipedia. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg ☺ ★ 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.
- And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg ☺ ★ 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):
'''[[Canvassing]]''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion. <ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref> Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing. <ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community. An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Third opinion: WP:CANVASSING states
Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.
- Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.
- Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Wikipedia for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
When You Wish Upon a Weinstein
This episode was cited by the media. With the filed lawsuit, When You Wish Upon a Weinstein may receive additional review by others. If you have the time, would you please rework the article with reliable source material. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Family Guy}} template
Thanks for helping push out the template. Feel free to add ratings for Class and Importance — you certainly know the project as well as anyone here. / edg ☺ ★ 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I'm not an episode reviewer, so I will just be adding the template. TheBlazikenMaster 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you value talk page discussion so much, you could have started that discussion instead of reverting and accusing me of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Take it up here: Talk:Erotica#Student_publications 151.197.111.178 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think we were editing at the same time. Look, it may one day be big enough to justify its own article, right now... no. Until then it should stay where it is. 151.197.111.178 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't move the discussion to my Talk page after telling me to discuss this in Talk:Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- My comments here merely reflected what i've already said on the talk page. I was responding to your comments on my talk page. So, my comments here were just comments about your comments. In the end, I don' want to edit war, bit i do feel that that section adds to the article.151.197.111.178 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 151.197.111.178 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Protection requested and edit war reported here 151.197.111.178 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 151.197.111.178 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies if you were offended. I don't think there is consensus here. Can we agree to leave the information there until there is some resolution about where to put it? 151.197.111.178 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- 151.197.111.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3RR.
- Your apology would seem more sincere if you
- weren't asking me to "agree to" leave the article the way you want it,
- had not placed a bogus {{editprotected}} template (which is certainly either ignorance or vandalism),
- had not made a manipulative WP:RFPP request,
- had not threatened to report me repeatedly over bogus infractions,
- had not made Edit summaries describing edits by others as "vandalism", and
- had not repeatedly editing against obvious consensus, beyond 3RR.
- And yet you accuse me of "edit warring and bullying". My most constructive suggestion for you at this point would still violate WP:CIVIL, but I sincerely do hope you get the kind of help you need.
- It would also be nice if you registered an account. / edg ☺ ★ 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your apology would seem more sincere if you
Alleged disruption message posted on my Talk page
You seem to think that a message was left here that wasmeant for me. And you seem to have posted it on my page. I have no idea what your talking about - and I wish you had not done that. You should contact the person who sent it and tell them that they have made a mistake. --Ludvikus 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was clearly meant for you — examine the diff. Since Jreferee is answering a question for which you solicited an answer, I thought it would be polite to pass it along. Sorry if this causes problems — in the future I won't bother. / edg ☺ ★ 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was reckless of you to simply post an apparent editors threat to Block a user without the appropriate precaution that it be noticed by the parties involved. You should not have done that Cut & Paste. Since I'm not an inexperienced User, I was easily able to find out what has been done. But such reckless action could cause problems for another. Why didn't you simply tell the two parties what had happened? What you did is improperly fix an administrators un-sent apparent notice. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you? --Ludvikus 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies are not necessary, if your intent was to do good, which I now think it was. However, do you understand my point about the problems that could result? --Ludvikus 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The IP
Could you please keep an eye on my talk page? You know very well, that my edit summary was all according to rules. And you also know very well it wasn't rude either. But I really can't handle this IP alone, that IP just won't leave me alone. TheBlazikenMaster 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I do watch your talk page, I don't watch your edits — stalking is work and I'm lazy — so I can't comment on the Edit summary in question. The IP is certainly in the wrong for edit warring on your Talk page. However, for what it's worth, working cooperatively often means trying to understand editors who assume bad faith about us. They're worth listening to even if it's just to figure how to work sociably with editors who are easily tiffed off. I must admit this is not one of my best skills, and not my favorite part of being on Wikipedia.
- If delete/"I am right" just tiffs the IP further off, try asking questions to find out how the IP interprets the incident. If the IP persists in revert/"no you're wrong!", you can always ask him not to post to this page anymore. That's more of a last resort tho. / edg ☺ ★ 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Burusera - Full quote
I happened to run across this source while researching some cites for the lolicon article--there was a bit of original research that I was hoping to turn into something viable (and I succeeded). The source mentioned burusera, and when I wikilinked it, lo and behold, there was already a Wikipedia article. Coincidentally, another article mentioned the panties in vending machines. The quote: "Japan is known for its libertine view of sex and fondness for bizarre fetishes, such as a craving by men for girls' panties, which were sold in vending machines just a few years ago." -Jmh123 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
hey
ok i've revised those edits. didn't realize that guy was part of a project as he never explained himself. Grande13 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me how exactly this discussion can help the article? This article isn't about if the e-mail is fake or not, so I can't see the use. Info like that isn't encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Stan Thompson reversion
First of all you just threw out a lot of my work.
Second, this is not a real person, and Wikipedia is not a detective agency.
The Stan Thompson gag was in a episode years ago. My edits retained this as a footnote. It is not being thrown out. This has nothing to do with "canon". / edg ☺ ★ 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Meg Griffin
I appreciate you taking the opportunity to talk to me rather than just engaging in reverts when it comes to Meg. As I pointed out on the page's talk section, Family Guy is filled with strange, offbeat (and yet canon) items. In fact, these one-time jokes are how the show in many cases establishes how events came to pass; the plain and simple fact of the matter is that if the show says it (especially, in my opinion, if it does so outside of the obvious cutaways), we have to assume that it's factually canon unless a clear and present outside source says otherwise. I bring to mind several other examples that come into my mind- Stewie's head shape, Cleveland's slurred speech, and how Joe Swanson became originally handicapped are all canon items that originated as the same sort of one-off joke we're discussing at present time. Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively has stated Meg's parental heritage is not based upon Stan Thompson? 67.94.201.2 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively states that Meg is a real person, so that information like this is significant, and her article falls under WP:BLP and not WP:WAF? Do we have such a source stating this information is consistent with the rest of the show, and affects how the character is written in other episodes?
- I really don't wish to revive this seemingly endless, non-productive discussion. I think a consensus can be arrived at via WP:WAF, but for a few editors holding out that Family Guy is a live newscast of a real family.
- Also, I'm somewhat ticked off that you undid a large number of my edits over this petty nonsense. I'm not reverting this anymore. You win. / edg ☺ ★ 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Come now, Edgarde, you and I both know we're talking about the canonical status of in-universe information, related to the fictional entities on Family Guy. I am going to apologize about the other information that was reverted- it was entirely unintentional. Again, I am sorry about the accidental reversion of your other work, because it does belong here. This isn't about winning or losing, just about what is, or is not. The show has stated that Peter is not her father, so do you not agree that, in an infobox of parental lineage, that accuracy to the show should be maintained? 67.94.201.2 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- But then of course we run into the problem of (in-universe) accuracy. It is indeed a tricky balancing act- that of maintaining the standard of both brevity and being on-point. I think you've done a great job of that, with of course our small disagreement being the only sticking point here. I just don't think it would be accurate if we didn't include Meg's (in-universe) real father in the infobox. And in reality, it seems that it might even be better to have just the brief inclusion of the name, rather than an entire paragraph dedicated to the article. I will, actually, let you decide on this one- you've got a good eye for what should and should not be when it comes to Wikipedia, so, after our 3RR period is up, I won't put the infobox back, if you change it. 67.94.201.2 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop your edit warring on erotica and work towards consensus. South Philly 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just got here and haven't checked anything, the timing alone would suggest puppetry of some sort. South Philly is the editor who originally entered this information. / edg ☺ ★ 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg ☺ ★ 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg ☺ ★ 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)