User talk:Redvers/Archive23

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redvers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Redvers - please do not edit my image placement. As the original author, and this being part of my dissertation on she and Dorrie Nossiter, I would appreciate your not revising my structure.

archiemartin Archiemartin (talk)

• Replied on user's talk page, stressing WP:OWN, WP:MOS and WP:SIG ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 08:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Redvers - Thanks for the note - but I have read all of the above - more than 3 times. I know people can revise at any time, but I also know that WP policy always refers back to the original writer and their determinations. This was one of the first things I was taught by my admin adoptor, so if you don't believe me, read on for yourself.

Secondly - the manual of style does not state anywhere that images MUST be placed on the right. Further, there are over thousands of images placed on the left and to finally make my point, if WP didn't offer this as an option in manual of style, they would not have it as part of their layout offering left right etc.

So - while we don't agree, let's just politely agree to disagree because I am the original author, and because I prefer that placement as I feel it makes the flow much better. archiemartinArchiemartin (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the coaching[1]. I don't know where would be the proper place to report a user account used entirely for vandalism, but which is not presently active. If not WP:AIV, is there some where else? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to report them at all. If they're not editing, they're not vandalising. And if they're not vandalising, there's nothing to report.

If they reappear (and have a username; different advice applies to IP addresses) then they can be reported based on them having had the full set of warnings last time and another upon reappearance.

If they don't reappear, ignoring them saves administrator and vandalfighter time for use against active vandals.

If they are vandalising but it is not clear; is complex; is intermittent; or it cannot be summed up in a single sentence; then WP:ANI is your friend.

Don't let the severely and fatally mis-named tick boxes in Twinkle let you think "if I tick this, it makes it true". It doesn't. Happy editing! ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that I did not dumbly rely on the Twinkle 'tick boxes', using words I carefully commented the nuance of this vandal when I reported it to WP:AIV.

What confuses me in this instance is that being a lapsed vandal appears to be OK in the eyes of AIV admins. I find this bewildering, as I don't see how timing matters. A vandal is a vandal. I must conclude that vandals are acceptable if they evade quick detection. Rather what matters is the immediate act of vandalizing. This concept confuses me, but I guess I can learn to deal with it. This user which I reported would have been banned indefinitely had he/she been caught four weeks ago. But when reported today, he/she has successfully gotten away with the 'crime'. I don't get the logic in that. I am only trying to understand what is the consensus, (or if there is a consensus) on how to deal with vandals. I am learning, it is not the vandals that are the problem, but rather the vandalism. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Redvers,

Thanks for "stepping in" but I really didn't need you to. What you fail to be seeing here is that you are misconstruing not only my article as an advert, which I don't appreciate, you failed to notice that I didn't mess with your edits because I liked them, and lastly, you are using your talking points to me in a way that construes I have little to no WP experience nor that I have read manual of style, on and on.

You may find it depressing but, I think you need to reconsider some of the points I just made to you, and also read my response to Mecu. Did I ever tell you this was "Off Limits"

I think not.

Anyway - below is my response. Feel free to share more but stop assuming because you know what happens when you assume - you make an....well you know the rest.

Best, Archie Archiemartin (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Masha Archer should be removed from Jewelry designer category --not enough credentials---

Redvers, I see you are against adverts and vanity articles per your page here. So, why then might I ask did you take away my nomination for speedy deletion? There are SO many designers in this category with tons of credentials other than belly dancing and this article does not happen to be one. There are thousands of graduates of her school. Does that make her a goldsmith or jewelry designer?

Examples:

• Archibald Knox - Isle of Man (Deceased)
• Sybil Dunlop, London(Deceased)
• Jean Gouldon, Paris(Deceased)
• Alan Revere, US (Living founded Revere academy)
• Patt Flynn, US (Living)
• Arlene Fisch, US(Living)

All the time I spend here is in the goal of making all these notable peoples bios possible and not have adverts. Do you know of any of these people? Could you possibly think to ask me about it in the future? Thanks, archiemartin Archiemartin (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for protecting my userpage! I wonder who that vandal was. Anyway, thanks very much, and happy holidays! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you nominated {{SVG-Trademark}} for TfD (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007_May_7#Template:SVG-Trademark). That same issue is being discussed again at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#SVG Logos, so I thought I'd drop you a line and give you the chance to weigh in. Dylan (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 4-Hour Workweek, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 4-Hour Workweek. Thank you. Busy Stubber (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I put this foward to help to make things more clear, if anyone wishes to remove it, go ahead, this was just to make things easier for others. Same goes for Category: Slashers = Backwoods and Category:Proto-slashers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSOCSOCSO (talk • contribs)

Date for archivebot: 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What I should've done was put it under the term Subcategories instead along with Category:Proto-Slashers —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSOCSOCSO (talk • contribs)

Date for archivebot: 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that User:Gkleinman made unsourced edits to an outside article to establish notability for his XCritic self promotion under an alternative ip address of User talk:24.21.183.177. Not sure if that qualifies as an abusive use of sockpuppetry. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ITC Wikiproject - Century 21 production.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right: the image and its rationale had drifted apart. Corrected rationale and tidied up the image description page. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.107.38.14

S/He seems to have an issue with Pat Forde and his SEC Supremacy theories. You seem to have a nice history with him, obviously this user doesn't understand the concept of warnings. I'll revert the article again, hopefully you have better luck dealing with him. Dx87 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I thought he had reposted what he had been copy/pasting. I need to go to bed. Dx87 (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:SR Sveriges Radio logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaced, unfortunately, by an SVG. So I've deleted my, more legally compliant, lower res version. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. John Reaves 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Many thanks. There were actually two, the other of which is coming up again shortly. But I shall treasure your award of his Mozness forever. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And nice to meet you. Tvoz |talk 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And you too! Legal threats by angry internet users are, 99.999% of the time, empty, hollow nothings. So don't let the chilling effect put you off productive editing. Of the 0.001% who are serious, a further 99.999% drop it when they sober up. Of the remainder, 99.999% drop it when they realise they don't know who you are and Wikipedia won't cooperate in finding you. And the remaining lunatic, with the birds twittering in the sycamore trees, drops it when s/he realises that it would cost a fortune for little or no benefit. But the shock when it first happens to you can set you back. I'm in my 5th year here, and of the many, many legal (and death) threats I've had, exactly zero of them has resulted in anything. But you never know, there's always a chance that there's a ninja armed with nunchaku and a writ hunting the backstreet of Auckland looking for me even now. Although I'm in Belgium, so that doesn't help them either! (My first legal and death threat combined said they would be tracking me down to where I lived in New Zealand. I've never even visited the country, so it continues to amuse me to this day.) ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I'm not the least bit chilled. Tvoz |talk 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redvers,

I noticed that you created images of each of the totems for British Railways Regions. Can I just ask if a) the colours are correct (i.e. the ones used by BR), and if so, b) could I possibly have the HEX codes?

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bluegoblin7! The colours are correct, in so far as they are taken from my own photographic collection of my own totems. (The lettering on the NE Region sign is obviously incorrect, but without the change, the wording is unreadable) There's a degree of variation in each and every totem, caused as much by the firing process in making vitreous enamel signs as by fading from exposure to sunlight. To allow for this, the totem images are made with a faint gradient fill, spanning the most likely "true" colours. Since making them, someone pointed out that I might have done better to use SVG - specifically by using a file from a modeller's. I can't locate that, but Google comes up with something similar here as a zip file and a glance suggests the colours are not incorrect (perhaps a bit too bright, although that could be my new monitor). Hope this helps! ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redvers, that should be fine. Unfortunately though, my Photoshop skills arent good enough to remove text and make the gradients work, so would you suggest just colour picking the left, middle or right band? (I know there are other bands but it makes most sense for them to be one of these) Or shall i colour pick from the EPS file in that zip? Thanks for your help... and if your interested as to know why i'm looking for these colours, I will tell you off wiki, for a couple of reasons (and I hope your not annoyed by the reasons - if so let me know and i'll do my best to make up!)

Thanks again,

Bluegoblin7 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd pick from the EPS file, since that is in flat colour, then tweak to what looks best for your ultimate (and mysterious!) end usage. If you look at this image, you'll see the trouble in gauging the correct colour; the flash doesn't help, but the sign is lighter on the right, probably from having been in direct sunlight. Or, conversely, it's darker at the other edge because of the firing. One or the other! This is typical, and many of these signs were outdoors in all weathers for 30 years. Good luck! ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redvers,

Thanks for all your help - the colours are all a little lighter than the ones i took from your images, but i'll match them to suit!

Thanks for all you help.

By the way, you might be interested in TrainSpottingWorld, a MediaWiki based wiki for Rail, Steam and Tram Fans. We allow all sorts of stuff not allowed at WP - Videos, Maps, "Advertisments" etc.

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cysero, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cysero. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One edit, removing an AfD notice that hadn't been converted into a debate. So I've no interest in the article nor any comment to make. But thanks for letting me know! ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just got round to reading your comments about the abuses of automated tools and I couldn't agree more. More than once I've gone on "New pages patrol patrol" after declining some bad speedies. I found that with a few minutes of help to a new user on better ways to start articles, I can create a regular contributor instead of driving them away. I'm not sure what the solution is here but I'd love to brainstorm about it. I don't think Wikipedia can scale properly without ways to also scale our editor base. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for the past few days (hence the silence - sorry!). There's a problem with "automated editors" and the roleplaying game they are acting out on Wikipedia - who can tag, revert and warn fastest wins a prize.

I've scored one victory in my recent banging on about this - there is now consensus on WP:AN that anyone who often/routinely/several times in a row uses automated tools to mistag, misrevert and/or miswarn can have their monobook.js blanked and protected for a period of time by any admin in order that the user can learn the rules before using the tools.

Since we can't physically make changes to the operators, and we're sloughing off newbies before we can take someone's tools away, then I say the tools must change. Specifically, TWINKLE must change - most other tools vet the installers, but not TWINKLE. Therefore, I'd seek some changes from TWINKLE itself:

1. Users must be confirmed before using the tool.
2. No warnings on a blank talk page. Welcome messages must be issued by the software in lieu of a test-1/vand-1
3. Reports to AIV must get better. The "actions clearly indicate a vandalism-only account" button must go.
4. The ability to tag for CSD with a blank meta template must go, if it hasn't already.
5. Most of all, we need to educate users. I'd support slowing them down, by adding a "Are you sure you want to..." dialogue box, whenever CSDing or reporting to AIV. And I'd support a flashing big sign on the top of the TWINKLE screen saying "You take responsibility for the edits you make with TWINKLE and failure to understand Wikipedia rules means loss of editing privileges" or something like that.

These suggestions are, of course, me at work in a bad mood with a sore head. They're "worse-case" ones, if you like! ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply meant that tags as to whether someone was gay or straight was, in effect, [too much information]. Since editors here effectively only exist as text, it's not really needed information. HalfShadow (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that people are entirely free to identify as whatever they want in any way they want, but the community reserves the right to put limits on that and I don't believe that we should limit the community's right to set limits. But (and it's a big one) you started correctly by saying "Sexual orientation is irrelevant here." but felt the need to add the insulting (NOT homophobic, but clearly insulting) "This is an encyclopedia, not a singles bar." And, yeah, that is insulting, and that is generalising (I've been happily 'married' for a decade or so to my boyfriend - using Wikipedia as a singles bar isn't something I would need to do... like most people, gay or straight). But I don't think you were being homophobic.

Nevertheless, you probably need to be telling AN that you didn't mean anything by the comment, rather than telling me. I knew. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A round of applause is for when someone does something that simply makes you want to stand up and clap, which you certainly did. Redvers, Wikipedia needs more editors like you: being true to oneself, but not letting it interfere with one's editing & interactions with the community. I just had to let you know that you inspire me, & keep up the great work. Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like we have the same hobbyhorse! :-) I noticed your edit here, and I've quoted you at the bottom of this thread here. Would you care to comment in more detail there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For being an excellent editor and a great Wikipedian overall, I award you this Barnstar in recognition of your work. Acalamari 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! What a wonderful surprise! Thank you very much - that's put me in a good mood for the rest of the day, that has. Cheers! ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Acalamari 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly! It's only what my English teachers and certain users have been telling me for ages now :) Thanks for the correction. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Sorry. Jamcib (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright issue of the article was already discussed and closed by the admins See below [2] Hence kindly revert back your changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinucherian (talk • contribs)

Already replied on talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why different admins have different opinions !! This was accepted by User:Chaser. Please revert back the changes and Let us open this for discussion. Tinucherian (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page (although just to re-iterate previous points, which were also re-iterated by someone else in the meantime). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not allowing the AFD discussion of Joy Alukkas?? The article Joy Alukkas itself is few links and the notability of the person said is in question. The person Joy Alukkas appears to be a relative of the creator (User:Avineshjose) both from the same place! Tinucherian (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page (although just to re-iterate previous points). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tinucherian, you have no chance of getting me to investigate another user for supposed wrongdoing by leaving me a bunch of links to each and every talk archive. I don't have infinite time and won't go fishing for wrong doing by any user. If you want to supply, concisely, specific recent diffs that you think break Wikipedia rules, then I might look into it. However, you have previously proven capable of childish spite when someone disagrees with you, so I will see any diffs through that lens.

Also, you say "It was orginally made by someone else and you doctored for change of name and claimed its ownership". First, I didn't and have no idea what you're talking about; second, the software here doesn't allow us to reassign edits from one person to another, so I couldn't have done so even if I wanted to. Please don't throw such ludicrous accusations around. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, I really appreciate it! Sallicio (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Hi Redvers,

why did you protect/delete the Sunfreakz page, they had a huge hit this summer. I tried the links vie wikipedia on Andrea Britton and Axwell pages, but the page is protected.

love,

Gabby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabby8787 (talk • contribs)

• Replied on talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize I overdid it now on the WP:SPA, but i have put it to the attention of WP:AN/I on the potential vandalism on this article by not just one, but several IP's from Ireland on this article and her older sister Siobhán (who the same set of IPs tried to delete again yesterday even though the previous deletion decision was keep). Thanks for your help though. Chris (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties with others at Code Pink. As I've said in the talk page, I'm not a fan of George Bush, Code Pink, or Hugo Chavez. Nevertheless, I've been bending over backwards to source well.

In one case, Daniel is accusing me of OR when I search for reputable sources that support -- or do not support -- claims of the organization, or how it runs itself. I did quote some unpleasant right-wingers that are still influential in their areas, and I believe it is not unfair to report the reactions Code Pink engenders.

Daniel objected to my seeking out public-record financial data, saying that was original synthesis. Frankly, that baffles me.

I'd welcome suggestions, because I'm really trying to get a better, balanced article on what is unquestionably a controversial subject. The real world says that any activist organization, anywhere on the political spectrum, will be criticized from other parts of the spectrum. It's much easier to keep an argument at a lower key when the organization puts out policy papers that can have their assumptions discussed, but I honestly haven't seen anything but sound bites. If there are substantive documents, I'd be delighted to find sources for reactions to the actual points.

Feel free to email. It may be best to give up on Code Pink. In other controversial subjects, such as the CIA, I feel I have negotiated reasonable compromises, although there is the occasional flareup. I'd like the Code Pink article to be as objective as possible, but when the group itself uses a confrontational style, there are going to be negative reactions. Today, I made an effort to find neutral financial sources rather than anything politicized -- no one else had brought it quantitative financial data. At least one editor thinks that's POV, which baffles me.

Thanks.

Howard Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard. Hmmm, this is a tough one, mainly because both you and DanielM agree on the vast majority of the article, but disagree very strongly on the emphasis and positioning. Worse, you're both right in many places and you both seem to have Wikipedia's readers' best interests at heart. I'm not very good at dispute resolution or mediation, but I know of people who are. I'm going to speak to the appropriate cabal and see what can be done. Bear with me. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can bear in lots of ways, although I don't want the POV expressed by an armed bear. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redvers...Just FYI, there are a whole bunch of other slogan articles I AfD'ed at approximately the same time. Should those be redirected as well?? (There was a question of whether or not I should have bundled them all together as a single AfD; someone cited WP:BUNDLE and I took to heart the piece about "if you're not sure you should bundle them, don't" which other editors have told me is incorrect. Still learning, you know?) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only go by my own judgement (as should you, of course!) and say that a crapflood of AfD helps nobody; if the articles are clearly effectively all the same article (ie, you can reasonable expect people to be able to cast one concise "vote" on the whole lot) then they should be in one AfD. If you can see how A, B, C, D and E have a clear difference to F, G and H, then separate them - but into ABCDE and FGH rather than 8 AfDs. In this case, if I were the closing admin, I would take a delete decision on the big group you've nominated to include subsidiary identical articles also. And I'd imagine (hope?) the closing admin will see the redirect and do something about it at the time. If not, I will after the fact! Your mileage may differ of course; and you are perfectly entitled to revert me or say "no, that's a stupid idea, could you re-list it instead" and I will ignore the former or do the latter (ie, agree with you). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no point being made, just me being nostalgic over the VfD days in 2005... before the change to articles for deletion. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I wasn't trying to be disruptive. Perhaps I should take a wikibreak before I cause any more conflict... which I want to avoid. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And when I do return Casanova will be the main article I'll be editing. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and as you can see from my talk page, I'm on editor review now... --Solumeiras (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Xcritic is back. I think I did the AFD correctly, would appreciate if you checked, and weighed in again. He's harking on about some libel in google cache now. Muppet. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And gone again before I even noticed. How strangely satisfying! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Channel4 red triangle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Page had been awkwardly moved with links not updated and a second article was now using the image too. Directly linked to the original article, removed the image from the new one. All done! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it was a long time ago, but I feel the need to apologise for my actions that caused my account to be banned. I now only hope I can gain a good reputation. Thanks, Joshuarooney2006 (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Welcome back to Wikipedia! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I have unblocked User:Joshuarooney, a user whom you blocked in August 2006 for personal attacks. After looking through his talk page history and contributions, I think trying to give him a second chance after more than one year is worth it. I did leave him a note to the effect that any further dickery from him would not be entertained and we might reblock him without further notice. Regards, Pegasus «C¦T» 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Always worth trying, and kids do a lot of growing up in 17 months, so I approve. I only got two bouts of name-calling, whilst User:KnowledgeOfSelf got the full sock drawer; he's retired, so we can assume that he's okay with this too. Thanks for letting me know. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I had the time and energy, I'd work up a report about HalfShadow's chronic incivility and nasty comments. Its what torpedoed his RfA, and its pretty common from him at AN/I. I might do it anyway, but I think its inevitable that he'll either shape up or be shipped out. Avruch ^T 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never been so disgusted with a person's comments in this place as I was by his last night. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 10:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's pretty obvious I'm trying to make a point.

However, it is not my intention (or desire) to disrupt BCBot's activities.
Unfortunately for me, it would seem I don't understand the process, and/or the requirements of the process, well enough to satisfy the requirements of the process.

Also, I don't understand about half of your message.
...are you making a point and aren't up to scratch. - Do you mean that I'm not up to scratch? Well, that may be the case, but it's rather rude of you to say so. I'm sure you could have worded it more politely.
These images are now going to get tagged manually. - I have no idea what that means, and more importantly, I have no idea what I have to do about it.

If you do your homework, you will see that in my history of over 3,000 edits there is NO vandalism, and NO disruption. You will, in fact, see a long history of reversing the effects of vandalism and disruption, and politely asking people to explain to me things I don't understand.

So, rather than telling me I've been a naughty boy, why don't you explain to me what's inadequate about what I've done?

My understanding is that I need to say why it is OK for those images to appear on those pages. Is that correct?
Well, I believe I've done that.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is, I believe, to state that this is fair use because the image is promotional material for the page that the image is appearing on:

1. Is that correct?
2. Isn't that what I did?

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it?

As I've said, I really don't understand the requirements well enough, and I am politely asking you to help me understand those bits of the requirements that I have not fulfilled.
And also, These images are now going to get tagged manually. - I have no idea what that means, and more importantly, I have no idea what I have to do about it.

I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting your reply, but it's bed-time here, so I thought I should advise you that I may not be able to respond for 18+ hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's now another thing I don't understand.
You've posted that you dispute the rationale, but what you've posted says:

This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless concern is addressed ...

However, I can't find any description of what the concern is.
Can you tell me where to find the concern so I know what it is I have to address?
Or am I missing something?
Clearly, I need some help here please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. What interesting posts from you. I'll have to think on for a while. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These images are now going to get tagged manually. - OK, I now know what that means.

But I'm still not very sure of what I have to do about it, particularly as I haven't located the description of the concern that needs to be addressed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me some indication of when you might respond?

(Again, it's past midnight here, and I will be away for the next 18+ hours.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And another 24 hours pass ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleeding obvious FURs... ...are you making a point and aren't up to scratch. Reads as one sentence (so the subject of the sentence is "FURs" not "you").

These images are now going to get tagged manually. Removing BCB's tags and using inserting a sentence designed to avoid the bot's detection routines doesn't work; the bot is not the only thing that patrols non-free images on Wikipedia and the tags can be added manually by anyone.

If you do your homework, you will see... Homework was done. This piece of user page vandalism by you and this one led me to this edit which led me to checking your image contributions here which led to me finding this and this bit of pointery: despite all the easy-to-find advice given on how to do a FUR, you wrote a sentence specifically designed to be ignored by the bot but not provide the information.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is... lacking or incomplete. If you use the template at Template:Non-free image rationale (which also needs Template:Non-free image data, but both are explained in plain language on the former's page) then you will get everything that is needed.

Can you give me some indication of when you might respond? Not when I'm not online, no. Powers of telepathic communication are only given out to every third administrator.

And another 24 hours pass ... ...with no edits by me (see Special:Contributions/Redvers). I can't reply whilst not I'm online. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. Whatever happened to assume good faith? You appear to have taken the most negative view of the situation possible. I thought WP administrators were supposed to be above such things. No matter; I can learn to live with it - I'll just have to become less trusting.

Reads as one sentence (so the subject of the sentence is "FURs" not "you"). - Good. Yes, if you read it all as one sentence, it does make more sense, and it isn't offensive. (I guess I wasn't AGF; my apology.)

Removing BCB's tags and using inserting a sentence designed to avoid the bot's detection routines - That's one (very negative) way to interpret what happened. Another way is to look at my actual motivation, which was to supply a FUR that would satisfy all requirements, including those of the bot.

Homework was done. - Again, a very negative interpretation of the circumstances.
The order in which you present the events is not the order in which they occurred, and you are drawing (negative) relationships between events that are either not related, or are related in a different way from the way you have deduced/assumed.
In what way is it vandalism to re-revert an edit which has been reverted without explanation, and put in the edit comment: (Could you please explain why you have reverted this posting? It doesn't look like vandalism to me, but if you think it is, could you please explain why you think this? Thanks.)?
Clearly, your definition of vandalism is different from mine, and from my understanding of WP's definition.
However, you are the administrator, and I'm assuming your knowledge is superior to mine, (I'd be rather foolish to persist with asking you questions if I didn't think you could answer them), so I will bow to your superior knowledge.
I would, however, like to understand in what way the re-reversion and request for explanation is vandalism.

you wrote a sentence specifically designed to be ignored by the bot but not provide the information.
As explained above, I did nothing of the sort. You may chose to (negatively) categorise it that way if you feel you need to, but please be aware that is simply your (negative) point-of-view, and as I have previously stated, neither my intention, nor my desire. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we get to the point that I really want you to discuss with me. Unfortunately, you have chosen to focus on other matters, and not put much effort into answering my question and addressing my declared inadequate knowledge. Hence, I will ask my questions again.

To "My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is...", you responded lacking or incomplete.
I don't find that a useful response. Presumably one of the two major reasons why this conversation is occuring is because the original was lacking or incomplete, and my attempt was lacking or incomplete. I don't think that is in dispute(?)
I have asked: What is it lacking, and how is it incomplete?
Whilst your response is completely accurate, it is not answering my questions.

As I said before:

So, rather than telling me I've been a naughty boy, why don't you explain to me what's inadequate about what I've done?

My understanding is that I need to say why it is OK for those images to appear on those pages. Is that correct?

Well, I believe I've done that.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is, I believe, to state that this is fair use because the image is promotional material for the page that the image is appearing on:

1. Is that correct?
2. Isn't that what I did?

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it?

As I've said, I really don't understand the requirements well enough, and I am politely asking you to help me understand those bits of the requirements that I have not fulfilled.

I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. (11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm looking forward to your helpful and useful response.
If you don't want to give one, just say so, and we'll stop wasting each other's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The order in which you present the events is not the order in which they occurred No, but it is the order that I discovered your edits to image pages.

In what way is it vandalism to re-revert an edit which has been reverted without explanation Well, actually, that would be edit warring; but I didn't notice you'd been doing that. I noticed that, having not got a response to your (continuing) harassment of Betacommand, you started posting stuff to his user page rather than his talk page. Great way of getting attention, but vandalism and harassment nonetheless. You give the impression of being impatient. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, perhaps you might consider a deep breath now and again.

Is that correct? Nice framing of the question, but I can confidently say no. You've aimed for the bare minimum possible and slightly undershot. We need to know a set of things; these are explained on Template:Non-free image rationale (plus the twin template, as previously explained) but if you don't want to use the templates, you can always provide the information required.

Isn't that what I did? No. You wrote a barbed sentence that the bot would not follow-up. You neglected to note that a human might follow it up, to much the same effect.

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it? No, and yes.

I have asked: What is it lacking, and how is it incomplete? Template:Non-free image rationale explains. If you want me to hold your hand through every step of that template then, with respect, you're not ready to be writing non-free media rationales and should consider refraining from doing so in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you. You seem incapable of distinguishing between POV and fact.
I said: I'm looking forward to your helpful and useful response. If you don't want to give one, just say so.
Your response was neither helpful, nor useful. You are wasting my time.
Goodbye. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)