agreed |
Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) →Congratulations!: I'd composed a two-word response... |
||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
*No, but apparently Gmaxwell is. There is an astonishing degree of hypocrisy involved in saying, "You made him go away, now you must go away!" This is furthered by "You didn't have consensus for your opinion, so you must not express it" (and how do we '''get''' consensus, if no one is allowed to speak?). Further, there is "I am upset at you, so you must shut up!" Further there is "He couldn't stand it anymore, so I demand everyone take a break from namespace but me!" The comments being uncivil? Who cares if they're incivil: they're absurd and petulant. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC) |
*No, but apparently Gmaxwell is. There is an astonishing degree of hypocrisy involved in saying, "You made him go away, now you must go away!" This is furthered by "You didn't have consensus for your opinion, so you must not express it" (and how do we '''get''' consensus, if no one is allowed to speak?). Further, there is "I am upset at you, so you must shut up!" Further there is "He couldn't stand it anymore, so I demand everyone take a break from namespace but me!" The comments being uncivil? Who cares if they're incivil: they're absurd and petulant. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
:I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but I did not make a single one of the statements you have quoted from me above. Nor should anything I said be construed to mean any of them. I did not you say you must go away, I pointed out that because you didn't see a problem with participating in that mob that your participation in the wikipedia space is probably a net harm to the project and I requested you discontinue. I did not tell you not to express your opinion, but rather that it was inappropriate to participate in a mob which used a non-consensus minority view to deny adminship to a perfectly good user. ... I can't counter your ''shut up'' comment because I made no statement at all in parallel which I can discuss. If you're going to make accusations about absurdity and petulant, please stick to the facts rather than the imaginary quotes which you've provided. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC) |
:I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but I did not make a single one of the statements you have quoted from me above. Nor should anything I said be construed to mean any of them. I did not you say you must go away, I pointed out that because you didn't see a problem with participating in that mob that your participation in the wikipedia space is probably a net harm to the project and I requested you discontinue. I did not tell you not to express your opinion, but rather that it was inappropriate to participate in a mob which used a non-consensus minority view to deny adminship to a perfectly good user. ... I can't counter your ''shut up'' comment because I made no statement at all in parallel which I can discuss. If you're going to make accusations about absurdity and petulant, please stick to the facts rather than the imaginary quotes which you've provided. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
=== Congratulations! === |
|||
Your note was the single most offensive thing I've ever found on my talk page. I'd composed a two-word response to your statement, which is two words more than it deserved, but I'll presume that you're not ''terminally'' stupid and try a bit harder. |
|||
I've had a little while to think about it, but I still can't decide which aspect is the worst. The tremendous arrogance? The grotesque abandonment of good faith? That it was simply ages ago? The fact that you used a form letter? It's all just too much. |
|||
I'm not sure what ''you're'' trying to do, but I'd have to agree with Geogre's characterisation of your comments. This has the air of a tanrum, not any attempt to actually reach any sort of resolution. In fact, this is trolling, pure and simple. Was there any genuine expectation that any of the people who received your spam broadside would actually ''cease'' editing outside mainspace? Or even, god forbid, discontinue <nowiki>[[their]]</nowiki> involvement altogether? If not, what were you hoping to achieve? <br/>[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 04:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=="Please discontinue..." really?== |
=="Please discontinue..." really?== |
Revision as of 04:28, 4 December 2005
|
Previous discussions:
Pings
Hi! The image you created, Image:Flag_of_Marshall_islands.svg, will probably be deleted rather soon, since its redundant with Image:Flag of the Marshall Islands.svg, and the latter has the correct name. You use it on your user page, but as I couldn't edit it myself (since you directly refer to the obsolete version of the image, and I didn't want to change anything in a way you wouldn't like) I thought I'd just drop you a note. Cheers! File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh it's the same file, I don't care what it's named. Thanks for letting me know, but you also could have changed it on my user page! It's written in third person style to encourage editing :) --Gmaxwell 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Tagged orphan fair use
Regarding your report, I've just been made an admin and this looks to be a fairly useful thing to help with and to learn the ropes as it were, but I just want to double check what I'm doing here:
- If an image, say Image:Royboy.gif, is linked to by a user page, is it still okay to delete it?
- Do I just push the delete button at the top of the page or do I use the Delete all revisions of this file link in the file history section?
- Is there a recommended text to put in the edit summary, something like speedy deleted per image speedy criterion #5, Unused copyrighted image?
Thanks for your help, Steve block talk 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for "butting in" on your page Gmaxwell, but here is my take on things. If the image on the userpage clearly is not "owned" by the user kill it on sight if it's been tagged as orphan for 7 days. If it's likely that the user him/her self is the owner of the image the polite thing to do would be to tell them that they can't use copyrighted works on theyr userpage, even if they own it themselves and give them a couple of days to clean it up (leave a dated note on the image page, this will cause it do disapear off the toolserver list for 7 days), maybe even point them in the direction of the proposed (and likely to fail) policy page Wikipedia talk:Licensing for community images. Stuff on talkpages should be killed on sight too, Wikipedia and Portal namespaces are more of a gray area, some pages seems to be likely fair use (featured articles indexes for example), while others are clearly not. When in doubht either leave alone or list on IFD. Only use the Delete all revisions for images, otherwise you just delete the page and leave the image intact, messy. Also remember to delete the talkpage if there is one per WP:CSD#G8. There is no standard for the deletion summary, just make it clear why you deleted it and in acordance with what policy. I would recomend beeing as verbose as possible, once you have made a good summary save it somewhere and just copy and paste later (personaly I use Opera's note feature wich is a tremendous time saver for that kind of things. Auto complete could serve roughtly the same purpose, though you have less controll over the content that pops up). That's just me though, I'm fairly new at this admin thing myself. --Sherool (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- So a thought on your point to leave a notice to the user: in the case of virtually all of these images, I ran a bot which tagged them a few weeks ago. The ones I didn't tag were tagged by someone else. If people had the images watchlisted they should have seen it. My thought on portal namespace is much like my thought on templates, while there might be some cases where it would be okay, there are no cases where the use of fair use it is our only choice and a great number of cases which would not be legal in the US... so it's better to avoid it. Also, a thought on the edit summary, use "Unused in an article", so when you do go after images that users have on their user page you can use the same summary without getting into a silly argument. --Gmaxwell 18:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Sherool. I've deleted a couple, although at the moment I'm going to leave anything which has a link to a user page. I've stolen your edit sumary, hope you don't mind. Would you mind checking my logs just to make sure what I'm doing is okay? Steve block talk 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Gmaxwell,
Your bot Roomba tagged an image, "Image:Zavaletacoat.jpg", that I use on my user page at (user:jaedza) for deletion. Although I am not fluent in copyright laws nor am I fluent in Wikipedia's deletion policies, when I purchased that image recreation of my family's coat of arms I was informed by the people I bought it from I could use it on a web page, I assumed my user page was a type of web page. In addition if there is a copyright on a coat of arms would it not have expired already? I use another coat of arms image on my user page that of "Image:Vidovichcoat.jpg", I believe the same applies here as in the above meantioned. Can you please inform me as to whether these images are fair game or need to be deleted?
Sincerely, James E. Zavaleta (Jaedza 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
Image:Wikirecentchanges.jpg
Your bot put Image:Wikirecentchanges.jpg up for deletion. Yes, it is copyrighted, but doesn't the copyright belong to wikipedia? Andjam 15:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- The image also contains browser UI elements which are probably copyrighted and thus could only be used by us under fair use. Because I recieved several complaints, I took those images off the list people are using to delete from... I still think that most of them should be deleted but I don't want the discussion to get in the way of progress on the other images. :) --Gmaxwell 18:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Roomba output
Hello again. When your bot outputs to the irc channel, would it be possible to make it output simultaneously to a text file accessible via http on en.wikipedia.org? That way I could build a nice web-based front end. Lupin|talk|popups 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Does it have to be en.wikipedia.org? And what format do you want for the file? --Gmaxwell 19:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be, but it would be a lot more convenient if it was. The easiest way to load a file is using xmlhttp, and this requires (for security reasons) that the file be on the same server as the script. If the script is running from en.wikipedia.org then you get auxiliary benefits such as other scripts working - I'm thinking of my popups script, which is useful for previews, although there may be others. There are also issues with the techniques I've seen for loading a file from a different server, such as the page never appearing to finish loading.
- If it's tricky to put a plain text file on the server, one thing that you could do is have the bot output to a text file which is periodically uploaded by a separate process to a protected wiki page, using mvs or the python bot. The script could then download it using action=raw. I'd expect this to be somewhat less responsive and more of a drain on the servers than using a plain text file, though.
- I was thinking of JSON for the file format, something like this:
[ { "page": "Foo", "editor": "Willy on Wheels", "oldid": "123456789", "cur": "234567891", "reasons": ["bang","fuck","LOL"] }, { "page": "User talk:Bar", "editor": "Willy on Whacked", "oldid": "12345689", "cur": "23567891", "reasons": ["speedy delete"], "summary": "nonsense" }, { "page": "Baz", "editor": "Wheels on Willy", "oldid": "3456789", "cur": "24567891", "reasons": ["damn"], "summary": "Lolzers pink \"flamingos\"" } { "page": "Foo", "editor": "Gmaxwell", "oldid": "234567891", "cur": "456789012", "reasons": ["revert"], "summary": "Reverted edits by [[User:Willy on Wheels|Willy on Wheels]] to last version by [[User:Lupin]]" } ]
- So that's an array of objects representing flagged edits, ordered by time of edit, the reasons in an array (in case there's more than one, although I realize that you haven't implemented this yet in the IRC bot output) and the edit summary omitted if it's blank. The whitespace is unimportant and strings have to be backslash-escaped. We should limit the number of objects in the file to some arbitrary number (10?) so that the file stays small, since it'll be loaded repeatedly by the javascript interface.
- One thing that may help to avoid creating a stampeding herd of trigger-happy admins all clicking the same diff link would be to output the first edit after a suspected vandal edit which looks like a reversion - this is what the last line in the example above is about. Then the script could update the display in some way to indicate that this has taken place. Lupin|talk|popups 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, roomba outputs multiple reasons already. That format would be no problem, I'll work on getting things set so I can write it in the correct place (yes, I could write a wikipage, but I'd rather not pollute the database). Since it's not going to be quite realtime, it will be hard to keep people updated on the latest non-reverted edits... I have a couple of thoughts on that: have every client select an edit from the list of flagged edits at random. After they have reviewed that one edit, they repoll the server for the list which only has edits which haven't yet been reverted... Depending on how much flexibility I get with this (I'm going to see if I can get our frontend to redirect some url to toolserver where I can just have a cgi respond to the queries) I can even set it up so that the server selects which edits you'll review, leading to almost zero duplication of effort around the tool users. --Gmaxwell 16:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent. Please leave me a note when you've got some text output going. I like what you suggest for server allocation of edits, although I think it would be useful to still be able to grab all edits if you explicitly request them, so that you can review the reversions. Sometimes vandalism slips through when several editors vandalize in rapid succession and an editor hits rollback without checking carefully. Lupin|talk|popups 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I can start storing alerts in a database, then I can provide a page which lets you look through historic alerts. I'll give that more thought. --Gmaxwell 18:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Image
Hi, AFAIK the image was created for me. If it wasn't (apart from having a nasty talk with John, who was asked to create one, not take one, specificially so that it would not have legal issues associated with) if you know of one that is OK please let me know. Re the image, no, that one was my mistake. I miscategorised it. It was my error in that case. However if the deleter had informed me of the problem I could have fixed it.
That is one of the big gripes I have: categorisation errors that could be fixed if the downloader is contacted instead lead to deletion of perfectly correct images where the problem is a categorisation error. Another deleter blanket deleted a large body of images without notifying the downloader. It turned out that the downloader had checked directly with Jimbo about the source and Jimbo said they were legal. But the deleter didn't check with the user first and so didn't know the full background. (The user should have, but didn't, put a summary of the background on the files, yet another example of text error that could be discovered by contacting people.
Another deleter infuriated a host of Australian users by doing a mass delete without checking. It would simply a case of mistake in categorisation but again, instead of checking, a mass delete occurred and Aussie editors suddenly found that Australian articles they had taken weeks copyediting, laying out and adding images to, were all reduced to a mess, with red links to missing images all over. To say they went ballistic is an understatement.
I was one of a small minority two years ago who called on WP to get legal advice and create protections for itself. Instead it developed a free-for-all. Now, in trying to undo the legal mess it created, some users trying to 'fix' the problem are making it worse, by wiping what turn out to be valid images by not bothering to double check things. Most images on WP probably are illegal. It would be disastrous if in trying to fix that we erased much of the small stock of legal ones. That is why I have been making such a big issue of trying to ensure people check what they are doing. A lot of users have gone to great lengths to take their own legal images and give them to WP, or to source legal ones. It is counterproductive to piss off the users being careful. If they stop taking images then WP could have major problems with illustrating its articles.
Sorry for going on at length. Just as I annoyed people two years ago complaining about the downloading of clearly illegal stuff, I am probably annoying some people now by complaining about the deletion of legal stuff. The bottom line is the same: I want us to get it right.
Thanks for the message. It was nice to actually have someone point out a problem and seek a solution rather than just bulldoze their way through without checking. I've been meaning to sort out the images on my page, and replace them with PD images or ones I created, but kept getting sidetracked dealing with vandalism. Twice I had the page redesigned with new images when Camino crashed. I've now started using firefox. I've removed most of the images. There are one or two left that I'll sort out later. And again, thanks for the contact. FearÉIREANN 21:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
PS: don't worry about being attacked by me. I have a thing about standards and take them very seriously. Shoddy work annoys me and I speak my mind about it (too bluntly sometimes!). Professionalism impresses me and I speak my mind about it too (maybe not often enough). Slán FearÉIREANN 01:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Broken robot
Your robot is tagging images from the commons.
- Image:MusicBrainz Track Icon 32px.png
- Image:MusicBrainz Artist Icon 32px.png
- Image:MusicBrainz Album Icon 32px.png
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not broken.. The images have a fair use category on english wikipedia and are unused here. ... and you're the one who stuck the fair use tags on them. Don't do that. If they are fair use, please ask that they be deleted from the commons, if they are not fair use don't tag them as such.. also don't tag the image page on en if the image is actually on commons. :) --Gmaxwell 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia screenshots
The images in Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia, for example Image:010405ac.png, are not fair use, even though it's a subcat of Category:Fair use screenshots. User:Roomba needs to know about that exception. dbenbenn | talk 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thats not correct for vast majority of them, as they contain copyrighted browser UI elements. --Gmaxwell 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you'd like I can exclude these from the orphan report list so people will not delete them until we settle the issue. --Gmaxwell 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. I see that Template:Wikipedia-screenshot has recently been updated to warn about not including UI elements. I'd appreciate if you'd exclude these screenshots from the report list, at least for now. The ones that don't have fair use UI bits shouldn't be speedy deleted, and even the naughty ones can easily be cropped.
- They should be excluded right now. Let me know if you see that they are not. :)
- Another thing: could you modify Roomba to use {{orphaned fairuse not replaced|~~~~~}} and {{orphaned fairuse replaced|Image:NewImage|~~~~~}}? The date parameter will make it easier to see whether an image has been tagged for more than a week. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, sure, done. However, I would *strongly* suggest that all users interested in cleaning up these images use my
reportreport which is live updated (excluding toolserver database problems, it's a bit lagged at the moment) and filters out images whos pages have been updated in the last 7 days. --Gmaxwell 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, sure, done. However, I would *strongly* suggest that all users interested in cleaning up these images use my
- Another thing: could you modify Roomba to use {{orphaned fairuse not replaced|~~~~~}} and {{orphaned fairuse replaced|Image:NewImage|~~~~~}}? The date parameter will make it easier to see whether an image has been tagged for more than a week. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- (In fact, if you'd have Roomba use {{orphaned fairuse not replaced|yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm}} we could have Category:Orphaned fairuse images sorted by tag date, which would make life easier still.) dbenbenn | talk 00:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, edit conflict. :) Too late, I've changed it to your first suggestion. See above, use the report not the category page. If you need something changed in the report let me know... I can add anything you might want. Did you not know about the existance of the report? --Gmaxwell 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, since it wasn't linked from Category:Orphaned fairuse images. I just added the link there. dbenbenn | talk 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- We talk about this stuff in too many places. I've talked about it in a couple of places. I suppose the cat page is the best... Thanks. --Gmaxwell 03:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, since it wasn't linked from Category:Orphaned fairuse images. I just added the link there. dbenbenn | talk 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, edit conflict. :) Too late, I've changed it to your first suggestion. See above, use the report not the category page. If you need something changed in the report let me know... I can add anything you might want. Did you not know about the existance of the report? --Gmaxwell 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Removing orphaned fairuse tag
Hi there,
Who removes orphaned fairuse tag after images get used? Do you do it or does the editor who includes the image in the article do it? --Dijxtra 20:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding. Ideally the editor who uses the image will remove it. However, if he misses it, I will catch it within 24-48 hours. Since the list people should be using to delete from also makes sure the image is orphaned, there is no risk of a non orphaned image being deleted. --Gmaxwell 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I have a similar question. I uploaded Paris_Australia.jpg, and your robot friend added an orphan tag to it. I've since linked the image to Sofala, New South Wales, which was the reason I uploaded it initially. Can I remove the tag myself? Cnwb 22:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sure you can. But I'll probably remove it before you do it, if you haven't already. If for some reason you incorrectly remove a tag, it will just be added again later. Robots don't hold grudges. --Gmaxwell 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Gmaxwell, I left you this question on my talk page but you have not responded yet, so I am re-posting here: Thanks for your help. I am trying to understand the last thing you said. Could you please point to where exactly the official Wikipedia rule states that "...you...can only use the image on Wikipedia...only in an article"? Where can I read this "rule/s" that even Wikipedia:Fair use pictures are allowed "only in an article" for myself? Let me know on my talk page when you respond. Thanks. IZAK 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I'd answered you, I guess the page didn't save and I didn't notice. See Wikipedia:Fair use at the bottom of the policy section:The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used... Also see WP:CSD Images number 5. --Gmaxwell 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Your bot Roomba picked up on my photograph which is used both on my User page and I have just put it in the Wikipedia faces page... based on the above I'll remove the tag myself, but does use on a User page not qualify as use in itself? Thanks Doc 06:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Do you own the copyright on that image? If so please tag it as GFDL-self. It's currently tagged as a fair use image, which we do not accept for use in any place except the main namespace (i.e. encyclopedia articles). --Gmaxwell 12:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do own it and have used it as a publicity shot which is the reason that I had selected that designation...does that not qualify? and/or does the Wikipedia:Facebook count as article? Thanks, don't mean to pick, but I'm trying to be clear in my understanding for the future. Thanks Doc 17:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Facebook doesn't count. :) As far as tagging, we're looking for images to be tagged with the most liberal permission which apply, so you should mark it GFDL since if you upload to english wikipedia you agree to license your work under the GFDL. The promotion photo tag implies that the image is only allowed to be used on Wikipedia under fair use, and we don't permit such pages outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 18:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarity, I'll change it. Doc 19:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair use and comics
Not sure if you have had a chance to glance at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics, but as I feel you are someone who has an interest and also relevant experience in this area I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read it and comment, as I think it is important to clarify the situation. I would dearly value your input and insights, thanks in advance, Steve block talk 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Template:Audio
Hi. There is something wrong with Template:Audio. After you deleted the colon before Image, the template started to display some "missing image" icon together with the play triangle. This happens for example at the beginning of article Bucharest, but also in the discussion page of the template itself. I don' know if this helps: I work on a Windows XP with IE. --AdiJapan 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, it is obvious (at least to me) that Template:Audio is still not working. The "missing image" icon hasn't disappeared. Clicking on it has the correct effect, but this appearance isn't what was meant, right? --AdiJapan 07:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Roomba gone
[03:14] * roomba has quit IRC (Remote closed the connection)
— BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 08:40
- Due to a disk crash in toolserver roomba will be down for a while. :( --Gmaxwell 14:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Small loss IMHO, given how it screwed this one up: [1].
- Notice how Postage stamps and postal history of Austria is now full of holes. I was on a two-week vacation too, so the marking and deletion all transpired while I was gone. Stan 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened now. Some *%&^($! emptied out half the article without anybody noticing, so the images were indeed orphaned at the point Roomba was running. Fortunately I do have backups of these images. Stan 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've mentioned our global warming dispute in my RFA
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I have mentioned our dispute over Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina in my RFA, in response to question 3 (as an example of a conflict I've dealt with). I will not formally accept the nom until December 1, so please let me know if you have any objection to my characterisation of the dispute. Cheers! BDAbramson T 16:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
# of edits VS. length of time in existence
Several people have been wondering how many people viewed the infamous John Seigenthaler Sr. article before it was corrected. Since that number cannot be determined, it might be possible to take an educated guess by extracting data from every article, specifically the number of edits versus the length of time in existence. This way we would be able to put Seigenthaler's article in perspective with all other articles. I asked brion about doing this, and he said it would be relatively easy, but told me to ask someone with toolserver access to do it. So, how about it? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 05:30
- I'd be glad to do it... except toolserver has no databases now. --Gmaxwell 14:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah I heard about that. If it gets fixed before Monday, could you please try to do this before then? Jimbo had requested any information on how visible the article was with that vandalism in it, and this would help him out when he discusses it on CNN with John Seigenthaler on Monday at 2:30pm EST. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:34
- Hm I'd thought we'd kept aggregate viewership information .. we had in the past, although it isn't publicized.. But I suppose that whatever we have may have been tained by the press he brought the article. In any case, we could never even begin to estimate viewership on the mirrors. I doubt toolserver's databases will be fixed by monday, even with the disks back it takes a couple of days to get the data all loaded and replication running. --Gmaxwell 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, brion said that they purge such viewership information. We wouldn't have to work with mirrors. Simply plot all the data, then look at how many edits our specific article had after a given amount of time before all the press happened. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 21:46
- I think it's very unlikely to be informative and far more likely to be misleading. --Gmaxwell 22:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Let's just see what it looks like and then determine what we can positively say about it. And we'll say nothing more. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 22:33
- As I said above, no database no report. It will quite likely be weeks. I might load up a copy locally. But I've got other things I'm working on.--Gmaxwell 22:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Let's just see what it looks like and then determine what we can positively say about it. And we'll say nothing more. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 22:33
- I think it's very unlikely to be informative and far more likely to be misleading. --Gmaxwell 22:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, brion said that they purge such viewership information. We wouldn't have to work with mirrors. Simply plot all the data, then look at how many edits our specific article had after a given amount of time before all the press happened. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 21:46
- Hm I'd thought we'd kept aggregate viewership information .. we had in the past, although it isn't publicized.. But I suppose that whatever we have may have been tained by the press he brought the article. In any case, we could never even begin to estimate viewership on the mirrors. I doubt toolserver's databases will be fixed by monday, even with the disks back it takes a couple of days to get the data all loaded and replication running. --Gmaxwell 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah I heard about that. If it gets fixed before Monday, could you please try to do this before then? Jimbo had requested any information on how visible the article was with that vandalism in it, and this would help him out when he discusses it on CNN with John Seigenthaler on Monday at 2:30pm EST. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:34
Your recent revert [2], although labeled "removing images," re-introduced a bunch of typos (e.g. "sporano") and removed substantial other recent modifications to the page. Is that what you intended? —Wahoofive (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed not, thanks for pointing it out. It's odd.. I had the tab still up from that change, hit back and submit again, and it saved it without those other changes. It must have been some really odd software bug. --Gmaxwell 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Not vandalism...
...I was just wrong, that's all. I guess if it's a lot of sharps instead of just a couple... Salafenrin 08:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm terribly sorry for my failure to AGF there... I'd been chasing around a user who'd inserted a ton of copyrighted material in Wikipedia and made a number of other spotty edits. I'd though it was him who'd made that change (he'd editited right before you made it) and based on that presumed it was subtile vandalism. Since there is no C clarinet in common use, the alternative is the Bb. Compared to the Bb the A should be easier for any number of sharps (as written in C!) since it always result in a net reduction of accidentals. --Gmaxwell 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, somehow I remembered it backwards! I haven't played in an orchestra for, gosh, 6-7 years now, and obviously it shows. Blah. :) Salafenrin 05:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Confused
Not being a big one on edit count, I hadn't really checked my edit count tally for a while. When I did, thinking I'd try and figure out when my 5000th edit would have been, I was a little confused, as my edit count had actually seemed to go down. A few weeks later (i.e., today) I just figured out why, thanks to the WP:1000 page. For some reason, as of 29 November, I'm on there twice, at #1099 (with 3990 edits) and at #1340 (with 2119) edits. Kate's tool had seemed to reduce my numbers, too (back when it was working, anyway). I don't get it. Can you explain, you seem to be wicked smart when it comes to things like this. Proto t c 15:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry I can't be much help.. the two listings there are because there are two lists. One is of edits in the article space, one is of edits in all namespaces. Right now the database Kate's tool runs on is down, which also takes out my database access. Perhaps you had a number of edits deleted? They don't count then..--Gmaxwell 21:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
your bot automatically tagged some of my screenshots as orphaned
Hi there,
One of my current projects is working on turning the article about Adrienne Clarkson the former Governor General of Canada into a featured article. While doing this I snapped some screenshots of a young Clarkson hosting The Fifth Estate during the 1970's. When I sat down to do some hacking at the article today and finally added one of the screencaps (I have 8 loaded onto wikipedia, they are all sitting in her talkpage waiting to be implemented) I found they had been taged as orphaned because they have yet to be used in any articles themselves. There is currently a photo gallery on her page but I figured it would be better to put (mostly repetative) images in her talk page so as to not slow down the page loading. It took a while to get around to this project because a) Im in the middle of exam season and b) the article is currently listed in nomination for Canadian Colaboration of the Week. Im am going to take the tag off the images for now and after this project is completed any unused shows can be deleted. Is this acceptable ? Dowew 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- If the images are in use in an article it is fine to untag them (were the toolserver database not down I would have untagged them myself soon after you put them in an article). I noticed on the page that there is a gallery at the bottom. Wikipedia policy expressly forbids the use of fair use images in gallery form, as well as the use of fair use images for mere decoration. I hope that the images will eventually be used to facilitate discussion and that the current use is only temporary. In the future you should avoid uploading fair use images until you are ready to use them. Also be sure to include your rationale for fair use when it isn't completely obvious. --Gmaxwell 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adrienne Clarkson is my holiday project. Anything that cannot be used (all photos currently displayed on the page will be utilized - for example the images of Clarkson performing remembrance day ceremonies can be used for both her relations with Canadian Veterans and for the criticism against her for having John Ralston Saul lay the wreath on behalf of the people of Canada - the image of her and The Hutterites can be used to show her efforts to bring attention to marginalized groups of Canadian society ect). The article should be ready by Janurary and will of cource have to go thru a peer review and any major problems with photos can be cleared up then (I doubt there will be too many problems - for example the Order of Canada page turned out okay and most/all of the photos of Clarkson's page are from gg.ca just like that page). Thanks for the heads up - I wasn't aware of that policy about galleries. Dowew 05:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Your recent rash of comments on other user's talk pages
I couldn't help but notice your recent rash of comments on other user's talk pages regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rl; while their comments may have been somewhat misguided, your unilateral request that they avoid participating in anything other than the Article space suggests an issue of maturity on your part. Please rethink your comments and considering addressing this matter in a more WP:CIVIL manner. Peyna 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to offend, but we can not tolerate users abusing polls like this to frighten users from expressing their perfectly valid views. It is beyond unacceptable. I am within my right to make the request, there is nothing uncivil about it. I hope the seriousness of my comment helps others consider the ramifications of their wikipolitical games, since driving off another contributor was obviously insufficient. --Gmaxwell 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- (added after edit conflict) I am quite taken aback as well. Requesting people to discontinue participation because you didn't like a comment of theirs is completely out of line. If someone is doing something you disagree with, then by all means, let them know, discuss the matter with them. But to request someone to cease participation because you disagree with the reasoning in a single vote three months ago is appalling, not to mention arrogant. The assumption of bad faith (that the vote was made in order to use " a helpful user as a pawn in [one's] wiki political battle" is quite disturbing as well. Wikipedia is a diverse community, and we're bound to have people with varying opinions. You can protest or discuss differences of opinion, but this is not the appropriate way to do this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not simply a matter of a differing view, the mob attack on Rl is simply inexcusable. Wikipedia is not 'debate class', I'm fed up with people playing games and using their odd analysis of policy as an excuse to bludgeon a perfectly good user. There is no failure to assume good faith here, I'm sure that each one of the 12.5 people I contacted thought they were trying to help Wikipedia, however in that attempt at least they failed miserably. Participation in meta discussion from all parties is not required for the continued operation of wikipedia, we would be better off if people who involve themselves in excessive wikipoliticing and mob behavior discontinue their involvement with non primary namespaces. Were this simple a matter of a 'single vote' I would have nary a comment, however each particpant, by willfully engaging in the outragious mob assult on Rl, is responsible for the whole of the result. It wasn't a single vote that I decry their actions for, it was the spitting in the face of a valuable editor over some poltical nonsense at a vulnerable point in his wikipedia involvement history. --Gmaxwell 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Gmaxwell, I consider your recent comments quite shocking and inexcusable. Your actions are not supported by policy or normal community behavior. Thusly, you should apologize for your statements, find a more civilized manner of discussion, or don't bother editing anymore. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 06:47
- Isn't it time already for you to ask me to run more reports for you, so I can tell you for the eighth time toolserver is down? ;) --Gmaxwell 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that Gmaxwells comments can still be considered to be within bounds. The Rl situation was certainly quite dire. I must admit that I'm not entirely happy myself. Kim Bruning 07:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I think a retraction or apology is in order here. Rl's situation is regrettable, however all we did is vote oppose on an RfA- not a personal attack- we cannot be held responsible if Rl felt offended by it Borisblue 07:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- At this point, I see that there are about 12 retractions in order: retractions produced by the mob which I have contacted. You owe the project and Rl one. You did not simply vote oppose, you participated in a unorganized mob which pushed a wikipolitical agenda against a perfect good and reasonable user. In effect the mob demanded he tow its party line, rather than meet the more universal standards applied to adminship by consensus, or the mob would use it's number to subvert the decision process. The mob, and thus each member, is fully responsible for unreasonably denying adminship to a perfectly reasonable candidate. Rl's following departure is completely understandable after he was harmed by a process and community so broken that it allowed this to happen. I would be glad to retract my request for you to discontinue your involvement in meta discussion if you can make an effort to repair the damage, and demonstrate an understanding of your mistake and the harms of mob behavior. --Gmaxwell 07:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's highly unreasonable for someone to be denied adminship for not choosing the same percentage as others want him to choose. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 07:40
- It might be excusable IFF the differing view was one which had clear consensus in the community AND there was reason to believe the canidate would be unwilling to work with the community, instead imposing his differing view unilaterly. In this case the disagreement was over a matter in which the opposing mob not only lacked consensus support of their imposed requirement but indeed appear to be in a minority in the project. Rl didn't even go as far as to actually disagree, he simply stated that only 100% and 0% were trivial black and white decisions related to consensus. --Gmaxwell 07:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- The only mistake I made was not returning to the RfA to see Rl's explanation of his comment earlier. Rl seemed to say initially that he would only consider 100% to be consensus- somethning which he then clarified the day after my vote- I thought eg that he would only delete VfDs if there were 100% delete votes, and close with no cosensus (keep) even with 99% delete- of course this is not a correct statement of Rl's position, but his answer was vague enough to imply it was. I now return to RfA more regularly to see if my concerns have been addressed postvote, but it is not something you can expect someone to do, especially on one of his first votes on RfA. Borisblue 13:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I never thought it was unclear, but I understand why you did. However, it was your obligation to make sure you understood before placing an oppose which was insufficently justified for anyone to realize that you had a misunderstanding. See Robert McClenon's vote for an example, although he failed to change it after the clarification was made. It would have been hard for anyone to tell your vote depended on a misunderstanding because several people continued with the same comment after Rl had clarified that he didn't think that consensus could only be 100%, only that only 100% is the only clear percentage which must always be consensus. --Gmaxwell 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed- Borisblue 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I never thought it was unclear, but I understand why you did. However, it was your obligation to make sure you understood before placing an oppose which was insufficently justified for anyone to realize that you had a misunderstanding. See Robert McClenon's vote for an example, although he failed to change it after the clarification was made. It would have been hard for anyone to tell your vote depended on a misunderstanding because several people continued with the same comment after Rl had clarified that he didn't think that consensus could only be 100%, only that only 100% is the only clear percentage which must always be consensus. --Gmaxwell 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- The only mistake I made was not returning to the RfA to see Rl's explanation of his comment earlier. Rl seemed to say initially that he would only consider 100% to be consensus- somethning which he then clarified the day after my vote- I thought eg that he would only delete VfDs if there were 100% delete votes, and close with no cosensus (keep) even with 99% delete- of course this is not a correct statement of Rl's position, but his answer was vague enough to imply it was. I now return to RfA more regularly to see if my concerns have been addressed postvote, but it is not something you can expect someone to do, especially on one of his first votes on RfA. Borisblue 13:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- It might be excusable IFF the differing view was one which had clear consensus in the community AND there was reason to believe the canidate would be unwilling to work with the community, instead imposing his differing view unilaterly. In this case the disagreement was over a matter in which the opposing mob not only lacked consensus support of their imposed requirement but indeed appear to be in a minority in the project. Rl didn't even go as far as to actually disagree, he simply stated that only 100% and 0% were trivial black and white decisions related to consensus. --Gmaxwell 07:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's highly unreasonable for someone to be denied adminship for not choosing the same percentage as others want him to choose. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 07:40
- As an outsider to this issue, I hope my comments here aren't misplaced or unwanted (but if they are, I think that it's reasonable to delete this if you want). I've read RI's RfA along with a half dozen other pages when I stumbled on this, so these are considered thoughts. I think that Gmaxwell has perhaps, just barely, gone too far. I don't see that there is anything wrong with civil discussion about Wikipedia processes and behaviour therein, even five months later. And I do think that Gmaxwell has been civil. However, I think that it is important to consider that it has been five months, and that's a long time. Those users are very likely much more well-versed with how to work co-operatevily within Wikipedia, and I think that posting comments asking users to disengage, especially without first discussing doing so, is a bit harsh. I don't really think an apology is necessary, though; we're not all suddenly made of eggshells are we? --Qirex 09:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, it is not unwelcome. I agree that my comment was harsh, but at the same time I find the harms of mob behavior especially when coupled with wikipolitics to be so great that nothing short of a harsh reaction is acceptable. I'll see how things turn out. --Gmaxwell 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, but apparently Gmaxwell is. There is an astonishing degree of hypocrisy involved in saying, "You made him go away, now you must go away!" This is furthered by "You didn't have consensus for your opinion, so you must not express it" (and how do we get consensus, if no one is allowed to speak?). Further, there is "I am upset at you, so you must shut up!" Further there is "He couldn't stand it anymore, so I demand everyone take a break from namespace but me!" The comments being uncivil? Who cares if they're incivil: they're absurd and petulant. Geogre 13:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but I did not make a single one of the statements you have quoted from me above. Nor should anything I said be construed to mean any of them. I did not you say you must go away, I pointed out that because you didn't see a problem with participating in that mob that your participation in the wikipedia space is probably a net harm to the project and I requested you discontinue. I did not tell you not to express your opinion, but rather that it was inappropriate to participate in a mob which used a non-consensus minority view to deny adminship to a perfectly good user. ... I can't counter your shut up comment because I made no statement at all in parallel which I can discuss. If you're going to make accusations about absurdity and petulant, please stick to the facts rather than the imaginary quotes which you've provided. --Gmaxwell 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Your note was the single most offensive thing I've ever found on my talk page. I'd composed a two-word response to your statement, which is two words more than it deserved, but I'll presume that you're not terminally stupid and try a bit harder.
I've had a little while to think about it, but I still can't decide which aspect is the worst. The tremendous arrogance? The grotesque abandonment of good faith? That it was simply ages ago? The fact that you used a form letter? It's all just too much.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but I'd have to agree with Geogre's characterisation of your comments. This has the air of a tanrum, not any attempt to actually reach any sort of resolution. In fact, this is trolling, pure and simple. Was there any genuine expectation that any of the people who received your spam broadside would actually cease editing outside mainspace? Or even, god forbid, discontinue [[their]] involvement altogether? If not, what were you hoping to achieve?
brenneman(t)(c) 04:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Please discontinue..." really?
Thank you for your note on my talk page. Wikis support a diversity of views and yours is certainly divergent from the ‘’Wikipedia’’ norm. Well, Vive la difference, as the French say.
However, your statement that my comment was a “ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior” is ill informed. I was quoting from the ‘’Wikipedia’’ policy on consensus. As to a “bureaucratic and arbitrary” standard. Well, perhaps, but along with the policy on assuming good faith, to which you happily (and rightly) subscribe, these are beacons to steer us through disagreements and conflict. They work. I’ve devoted much of my time, when not editing, to trying to make these policies work, and have been successful, in the main.
As to a “political battle”: That is not my concern. I try hard not to let my own politics affect my work on ‘’Wikipedia’’. If Rl is devoted to some political cause, and gave up when he wasn’t made an administrator, that’s life. Note that I didn’t say “just too bad,” because I believe that we are a learning community here. When he is ready to learn, he will be back. Sunray 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)