→not vandalism: new section |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<b>[[User:Radiopathy|<font color="#006600">R</font><font color="#0D8147">ad</font><font color="#009966">io</font><font color="#009999">pa</font><font color="#1E99CC">th</font><font color="#67B2DE ">y</font>]]</b> [[User talk:Radiopathy|•talk•]] 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
<b>[[User:Radiopathy|<font color="#006600">R</font><font color="#0D8147">ad</font><font color="#009966">io</font><font color="#009999">pa</font><font color="#1E99CC">th</font><font color="#67B2DE ">y</font>]]</b> [[User talk:Radiopathy|•talk•]] 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
||
== not vandalism == |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollie_Steel&diff=303865982&oldid=303865879 I know you did this with TW] and it's not a big deal, given how utterly over the top the wording was, but it wasn't vandalism, which led me to (very carelessly) undo your mis-labeled undo :) [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:17, 24 July 2009
I've relegated this to the article's talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 07:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not undo me without edit, I am not a vandal. There is a serious problem with non-free overuse on the article, and edit warring with me is not going to be productive. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to discuss it, but edit war for the retention of non-free content and you will face blocks. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let's discuss. Why do you feel there is a problem there, and why vandalise an entire artcile to make a point? I've reverted your edit in the meantime. And how do you justify calling me a vandal? Radiopathy •talk• 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, last warning. Revert again, you will be blocked. You want to discuss, discuss. I justify calling you a vandal because you reverted me without comment, slamming a large amount of non-free content into an article. I see now you've called me a vandal, and accused me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Again, you aren't going to get far doing that. Review our non-free content criteria, take a read of this essay, and then contact me on my talk page if you feel the use of the images is not contrary to our policies. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're about to violate WP:3RR. And I don't take kindly to your threats of a block if you don't get your own way; I'm sure you don't want to lose your bit. Radiopathy •talk• 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? You think I'll lose my "bit" if I block someone for abuse of non-free content and edit warring after numerous warnings? Do you have anything useful to say regarding these images, or not? J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would tone down the cheek a bit; it doesn't look good for an admin to come on with such a hostile attitude, particularly when dealing with such a controversial and still-unsettled issue as non-free image use. I'm sure you're well aware of the trials and tribulations of User:Betacommand. Radiopathy •talk• 02:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? "Cheek"? And yes, I'm well aware of what happened to Betacommand- he was blocked/banned several times for improper use of bots. Is this yet another idle threat? Our non-free content criteria are policy, and serial policy violators will be blocked. If you disagree with that, then I don't think the English Wikipedia is the project for you; I don't know how you think we can create an encyclopedia if we are not able to block those who ignore policy. What I'm doing is extremely standard- I remove images that are in violation of policy (in this case, non-free content criteria 3 and 8; this essay may also be helpful) and then I tag them as orphaned. If you believe specific images are adding to the article, you would be better off improving the rationale and explaining the issue on my talk page or the article talk page, rather than sitting here accusing me of abuse. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would tone down the cheek a bit; it doesn't look good for an admin to come on with such a hostile attitude, particularly when dealing with such a controversial and still-unsettled issue as non-free image use. I'm sure you're well aware of the trials and tribulations of User:Betacommand. Radiopathy •talk• 02:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? You think I'll lose my "bit" if I block someone for abuse of non-free content and edit warring after numerous warnings? Do you have anything useful to say regarding these images, or not? J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You are still bullying and threatening, but you are not communicating. Everything has been done to the letter: fair-use rational, proper copyright credit, et cetera. It is now incumbent upon you to justify removal of the images in spite of policy being observed. I want to see specific reasons why the images don't belong in the article. And don't refer me to any essays - essays are not policy.
BTW, Betacommand was not only banned for the use of bots, but for the same harassing, intimidating style that you're using here. And ironically, he used NFCC 3 and 8 as his rationalisation, too.
SPECIFIC REASONS.
Radiopathy •talk• 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
not vandalism
I know you did this with TW and it's not a big deal, given how utterly over the top the wording was, but it wasn't vandalism, which led me to (very carelessly) undo your mis-labeled undo :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)