User:Fvw/TalkArchive/15

This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page.

Sysop

tnx.

i did the same in bureaucrat, steward and developer. greetings Aleichem 21:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved the notices up all the way to the top of the page, as they're not really supposed to be part of the article but more of a hint to people looking in the wrong place. --fvw* 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Notable Article

It's a severe abuse of your admin powers to delete that article about you. I am trying to make you more notable. You should really stay away from that article about you. :-) Jeff 67.137.28.187 21:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just opened an WP:RFM concerning your abuse of admin authority to delete an article about yourself. I am recreating the article. If you delete it again or take any other inappropriate actions, I will probably have to raise the issue to the Arbcom regarding abuse of Admin powers. I am very sorry, but I feel you are very notable person worthy of acclaim and praise in Wikipedia.  :-) Jeff 67.137.28.187 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Boltfish

Copyright issues are tricky. As per my comment on the deletion page- The label may be non-profit, but the boltfish site clearly asserts copyright (scroll to bottom of page) and has the same text as Wiki article [[1]] --JJay 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's a copyvio (and have marked it as such), it's just that for some reason the copyvio speedy criterion only applies to material copied from the website of a commercial content provider. --fvw* 23:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I know about the commercial content aspect of the Speedy, and agree the def could be clearer, but the def also clearly says that no ownership should be asserted- and Boltfish put a copyright footer across their website. Furthermore, the copyright is implied anyway as stated in the note to the Speedy. Boltfish, non-profit or not, would have to renounce explicitly use of all their content. Plus there is the verifiability issue. How do we know that Boltfish is truly "non-profit"? They sell CDs both through retail and via download and probably would not be pleased if someone started a "commercial" company called Boltfish that mirrored their site. In short, I think, Wiki is better on the side of caution regarding copyrights. Since people will continue to try to use the wiki as a promotional organ, they should just avoid doing cut and pastes from press releases/websites/books etc. --JJay 23:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Very efficient!

You are so efficient on Wikipedia! Actually, now that I know you're online, what is the tag that is used to welcome IPs to Wikipedia? It's right at the tip of my tongue right now, but I just can't think of what it is... --HappyCamper 23:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure whether I'm efficient or just waste a lot of hours on wikipedia, but it's nice to hear. You're probably thinking of {{anon}}. --fvw* 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Wall of China image

The image was scanned from a book that specificially says that the pictures may not be reproduced without permission. The images in the book are copyrighted. --Hottentot

Scans of 2D images that are in the public domain are not considered creative works and do not give a fresh copyright, no matter what the authors of the book claim (see the templates on the image in question). --fvw* 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to see the templates, I uploaded the original image, are you sure that it can't be copyrighted? --Hottentot

The templates explain how copyright law works with regard to non-creative recordings of PD material, so they might still be interesting. And yes, I'm sure the pics not copyrighted provided the date of publishing listed on the image page is correct. --fvw* 00:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-add the image. --Hottentot

I already did, hope you don't mind. --fvw* 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I strongly disagree with the assertion that I was involved - it was a straight-up attack on Hipocrite that had nothing to do with me, and accusing someone of signing an RfC out of malice towards a user who's not even involved in the RfC is a personal attack - it amounted to calling him a malicious and vindictive user, and was a declaration of extreme bad faith. Snowspinner 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You've been revert warring with the guy and the incident occurred on on the RfC he started against you. How much more involved do you want? --fvw* 00:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

He's under a personal attack parole that makes no exceptions for involvement in the first place, and places it under the judgment of blocking admin, first of all, second of all, most of the reverts were actually with Mirv. Snowspinner 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Block messages

Good point; could you possibly unblock him (I'd do it, but I'm not sure how just yet) and leave him a slightly less insulting message? Say, just the second sentence? Thanks. DS 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, I don't know the history of the case so I'd rather not be the one to block. For future reference, to unblock someone you go to Special:Ipblocklist and click the unblock link there. --fvw* 00:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your actions

Excuse me? Why do you accuse of vandalism when this is a content dispute? You should take a minute to review the talk page before you point your fingers at people. 81.117.200.52 00:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page yourself. There is clearly no support for removal of the content. --fvw* 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Again, you haven't explained how a content dispute is vandalism - it clearly states in the vandalism policy that it is not. Abuse your authority much? 81.117.200.52 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting edits on my user page. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk) e
03:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, can I ask for a favour in return? Could you remove the animated gif from your signature? It is a bit distracting, and as Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages says, having images at all in your signature is discouraged. Having animated images might be a little over the top. --fvw* 03:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I have to hand it to you - you are good at reverting vandalism (and making the vandals extremely angry) : ), I hope you forgive me for my anger in the past, and we can bury the hatchet and forget misgivings. I still don't agree with some of your policies, but I do have to say you do your work here well. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk) e
03:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, sounds like a wonderful plan. Happy editing! --fvw* 03:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the first one out - but I sort of like the rotating car...if someone else says something I'll put the california flag back on. Gracias, obrigado Molotov (talk) e
03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's your call (though I would strongly suggest you reconsider). I am going to defuse them on my talk page, they're a little too much for my tastes. No offence intended. --fvw* 03:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand - looks like the previous and next messages are from people upset with you, so good luck : ). (And I sort of agree that those web links can say concerning below) Bye, Molotov (talk) e
03:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but this [2] is hilarious - that is a very vain action to take. Molotov (talk) e

It takes all sorts :). Thanks for the sanitised sig! --fvw* 03:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• On a related note, I think I handled this [3] pretty well considering it happened seconds ago - and directly related to my race. Molotov (talk)
  03:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[4] That is what I reverted - I am currently battaling the vandal on his user talk page, but have made no PA against him. Molotov (talk)

"not a web directory" ??

I don't understand why you deleted my edits in the War on Drugs article. I added several sites that are highly relevant to the topic. You seem to say that Wikipedia is not a web directory, but there are a number of external links on that page that are less relevant to the topic.

Yes, that external links section is in severe need of a little cleanup, it's just that nobody's gotten around to it yet. If you want to volunteer that'd be great! --fvw* 03:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm picking nits, but I don't see why you decided to "clean up" my recent contributions (if that's an appropriate term) without removing other links. If external links are not a "web directory", then what is the purpose of external links? What makes a link worthy of being an "external link"?

I scan incoming edits and remove the ones that look like they're not going to improve wikipedia. It just happens that I was doign this when you added your link and not when others did so. Nothing personal. --fvw* 03:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, you removed my link on the Due Process page to my article on Substantive Due Process. I do think my discussion of substantive due process in the article is pretty thorough and worthwhile, if anyone wants to read more about the topic.

The link you added to due process was about the war on drugs, not about due process. --fvw* 03:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the link I added was an 80-page pdf article about applying substantive due process analysis to the drug war. While the article does talk at length about the drug war, it also has an in-depth discussion of substantive due process, including the history of the doctrine, with an awful lot of endnotes referring to Supreme Court cases and law review articles on this topic. If someone wants to learn more about substantive due process, it can be a valuable resource. I admit a bit of authorial (is that a word?) pride here, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant to the topic.

Ok, how about a compromise: You figure out which parts are about due process and we list the page numbers after the external link so people don't have to search for the material themselves. Sound reasonable? --fvw* 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think you're picking nits (can you tell I love that phrase?), but I can accept this compromise. The most relevant pages are: 2-3, 6, 11-12, 21-22, and 29-30 (not including endnote pages). Pages 7-10 are also highly relevant in my opinion, but I'll leave them out. I will go ahead and re-add the link. --Thanks.

I'll help if you need any - and take this Working Man's Barnstar for the work you do here. Take care, V. Molotov

RSS and wikipedia

Hey, from rss. Do you use any readers with wikipedia successfully for watchlists? Trying to make it happen, or figure it out. meta:talk:syndication_feeds, at the bottom. Here 04:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't use RSS, I merely guard over the article… --fvw* 04:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No copyright

There is no copyright on this image. Stop falsely accusing me of doing something wrong. Are you just jealous, or what?

-llabc23

Yes there is, you got it from a porn site; you're not fooling anyone. --fvw* 05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No I didn't - You're the one who's a fool.

Yoga external links

I have at your suggestion reread the Wikipedia:External links criteria and I don't recognize specifically which criteria you believe the deleted links violated. Please explain, or I will continue to revert your changes. You apparently do a fair amount of editing and from the comments on your talk page from other users, appear to do so without regard to the nature of what your editing. These pages have a lot of personal effort, love, and compromise associated with them, and those involved would appreciate a scalpel not a sledgehammer as you edit. May I suggest that if you find the article problematic, you insert a clean up flag rather than simply cutting without documenting your reasons. Thank you. --Nemonoman 07:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Pages linked should be informative content about the subject of the article, not sites of organisations that happen to have something to do with the topic. Also please keep in mind the Three Revert Rule. --fvw* 07:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

We disagree about how you are assessing the deleted pages. I again respectfully request: Justify the specifics or leave them alone. If you have general heartburn, insert a cleanup flag or request arbitration. Do not continue your wholesale deletions. Thank you. --Nemonoman 08:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

From WP:NOT

There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

Since the list of external links = about 20 lines compared to an article of about 700, the list of links does not 'dwarf' the article, nor does it 'detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'.--Nemonoman 08:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To fvw: On your last edit to Yoga you made the following comments:

rm linkcruft again. Adding personal attacks isn't discussion. Please read Wikipedia:External links

1. Linkcruft. I don't know this word and can't find a definition. 2. Adding personal attacks... I sincerely wish to avoid personal attacks and I don't know that I have made any. If you have taken offense, I offer true apologies. Let me know what I can do to make amends. I am serious about this. 3. Please read Wikipedia:External links -- as previously stated I have done so. I had not read WP:NOT until your suggestions. In all instances, the article's external links fit guidelines.

What I had not done until last night was review the Wiki methodology for resolving disputes. The first step is what I am taking now: asking you formally to reach some agreement or compromise about this matter with the authors of the Yoga page. I'm prepared, of course, to follow every step to a satisfactory conclusion for us both.--Nemonoman 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

I thought the use of of an obscenity was nearer vandalism than a newbie test, perhaps I over-reacted - I'll unblock now, thanks, jimfbleak 08:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just the "fucking" bit? Lots of people use expletives in regular language (and Wikipedia is not censored for minors). Thanks for the quick reaction. --fvw* 08:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd have let it go, but in a bad frame of mind after yet another minor, mindless, but very persistent attack on Pheasant. Blocks don't work, since address keeps changing, so protected again now. Sorry, Jim

{{WOW}} Vandalism

Thank you very much for reverting that awful template on my user page and the user pages of some of my friends. Acetic'^Acid 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow vandalism

I second that, Thanks yet again. Molotov (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I really feel awful about my old comments. My deepest apologies, is there anything that I can do? Molotov (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Least said, soonest mended. Happy editing! --fvw* 04:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I feel really really bad that I don't know how to archive things. Please deign to teach me, I am a quick study. Thanks! Lone Odessan 05:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your talk page isn't inordinately full yet, I don't think any archiving is necessary. I'd be happy to give you a hand once you've made some good edits and it's a little fuller; feel free to drop me a note then. --fvw* 05:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Please leave me a message whenever you and Hall Monitor think that -my- talk page is

full enough in your humble opinion(s) enough for me to edit down into something that -I- feel is more manageable. Once again, thanks for the help! Lone Odessan 05:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer

I updated the 3RR notice as requested, and added in the recent reverts. I hope this helps. Thanks. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I should note that the dispute with him over the article Freemasonry is waiting on ArbCom, 3 votes in favour, none opposed so far. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In User:MSJapan's defense, he was just trying to help out against Lightbringer's badness and constant reverts/vandalism. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

editing

I have not vandalized anything. I made a simple edit.

24.15.73.202

Immediately after you deleted him from WP:AIV, he vandalized my page (and also revandalized User:Jakewater. Block is requested. --Nlu 07:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. --fvw* 07:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to stop him from editing his own User talk as well? He's making threats and deleting warnings. --Nlu 08:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And meanwhile

Hi fvw, I see you're up and around. As an admin, you might take a look at the comment I left some time ago at the foot of this page. I don't want to make a big issue of this; after looking at that page, feel free to delete this message. Thanks. Hoary 08:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your talk message on his talk page when you made it, and I agree (and I'm none too wild about the message he left on talk either). I didn't chime in immediately as I fully expect he'll realise and correct his mistake, and there's no need to gang up in that case. I'm watching both your talk pages so I'll join in the discussion in the unlikely case that it becomes necessary. --fvw* 08:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hey, this just came across the RC on Meta, figured you might be interested. m:Proposed CheckUser Policy. «»Who?¿?^meta 11:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Winniethepooh2.jpg

It seems to be a book/record combination; note the text "Turn the records and book upside-down for another story" which implies that there is a book to accompany the record. The scanned image is a record jacket, as evidenced by the RCA logo and the text "as told by James Stewart". Hope this helps. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Jakewater

Thanks for reverting User:Nlu as edited by Jakewater. Your thoughts on this: is Jakewater a sock puppet? --Nlu 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

re:testn

well in assuming good faith we should have a way of letting legit users know what entails vandalism since many users leave me messages after being warned saying things like "what the hell did I do to get this warning I don't know what I did wrong" though I agree it would be a bad idea to give vandals ideas. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Aloha. Could you take a look at Anne Frank and the latest edits made by Redzen (talk · contribs)? Take a look at the talk page as well if you have the time. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 02:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

k

k, I'll stop.

<3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.134.74.131 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 October 2005

Arbcom Complaint Opened on You by User:Gadugi

An Arbcom complaint requesting revocation of your admin status has been opened. Jeff V. Merkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.28.189 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 October 2005

I closed the arbcom complaint and am initiating litigation regarding your conduct against the site. I have also locked the page concerning you on merkeylaw. 67.137.28.189 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your censorship

Expressing my opinion that SlimVirgin is a [censored] on a talk page is not vandalism. You do not have the authority to block me for this. Only the arbitration committee has this authority. But, accustomed to the Gestapo tactics commonly used here, I fear my expression will be again censored and that I may be blocked in five minutes... 70.189.120.44 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't quite five minutes, but next time I'll be faster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Gun problem

I would like to note that an article that is supposed to talk about the German "MP 28" Sub Machine Gun directs me to the MP 18 article already on the list.

- Lythian

I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject matter, but the article suggests the two are very similar and strongly related; A combined article on both might be best, if you have a lot to add perhaps a separate subheading for the MP28 in that article would be useful? --fvw* 15:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Surprised

Hey, you're back. Didn't notice that. Why the long break? Chosen One 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, wikipedia was eating too much of my time… It is again, but hey, nothing to be done about that. Incidentally, do we know eachother? I don't remember you, though if we do that shouldn't be taken personally, I have a memory like one of those things with holes in it. --fvw* 17:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Like Swiss cheese with more holes? ;) Yeah, we know each other from way back when. You also blocked my brother sometime early this year, I think. Anyway, see you around. Chairs. ;) Chosen One 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very much for this - I appreciate the sentiment. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it! Cheers --PhilipO 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ANI

Looks like there was an edit conflict on the page, but I did not recieve the notice somehow. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring on User talk:Jtdirl

Wow, he's desperate tonight. I see you've been reverting him along with Kiand. Any chance we could do a range block on those IP's? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, still, it keeps him off the streets. Range blocks for long periods aren't viable, due to bigpond's IP allocation strategies it'd involve blocking off pretty much all of australia. --fvw* 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Un question

You noted on Requests for adminship that someone suggested checkuser be merged there? What page does "checkuser" refer to? Note, this a "there is no such thing as stupid question" question. I was just curious. Marskell 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find a description at m:Checkuser, but the short version is it allows you to find the IP of a logged-in user. And please do ask, after all providing information is what we're here for. (The section has been merged now by the way, and the policy is linked at the bottom of the RfA page). --fvw* 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Read it and I think I understand. I suspected this was essentially what it was for just wondering which other page you were referring to in terms of merge. And umm, sorry, about to go to the RfA page and oppose both nominations. It sets up two-tier adminship. Make it part and parcel of adminship, bureaucratship or stewardship or not. Why a seperate vote for a seperate power? A not unimportant one incidentally. I've often thought that the bureaucrat position didn't really entail that much extra. Perhaps this could be incorporated. It should be incorporated into something at least and not voted on as a seperate topic. Thanks for the quick response! Marskell 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been talk of combining it with the bureaucrat function, though there are some differences, as this requires a certain amount of technical knowledge where bureaucratship doesn't. If this is going to be part of bureacrat duties it's probably going to involve a reaffirmation of all the bureaucrats. Anyway, the current policy isn't meant to be the final thing, this is just a stop-gap measure to deal with the current vandals. --fvw* 00:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as stop-gap measures go this is a terrible way to go about things. You could make it a bureaucrat level function and grandfather the few dozen existing bureaucrats into it. Instead we're going to let admins vote on it, and let every admin assume they ought to be able to do it, and then, as I say you'll have a two-tier admin format. If you try and say "hey sorry, we're restricting it", it'll be a huge problem. It's been released now and as far as it goes you won't be able to stop it from being an admin power. It will become a (needless) secondary feather in the cap. Marskell 01:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Internet Trolls

Hey, you keep removing my section on troll culture from internet trolls, why? Wordforge, TrollKingdom (don't know about the other one, it's a hold-over from an older version really) are great vibrant and unique examples of troll culture, each expressing unique ideas, most definately ideas central to troll culture. But rather than question whether their principles do or do not cover signficant areas of troll culture, you decides to label the section as promotion which it's not. I'll wait for you to respond to this before I put it back. Borgs8472 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

They are all minor examples trolls, the article isn't a list of trolls or groups of trolls. Your constant attempts to promote wordforge aren't very helpful. --fvw* 01:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

With all due respect I'm just wondering, but which one of my edits did you consider nonsense, because some I considered reverting vandalism. My name is Waterloo 02:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I especially am wondering why you reverted my edits for User:Joy Stovall. I think he should see what I wrote. Waterloo 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

email

I'm puzzled. The email address in the preferences is exactly as my email a/c is written. (I had it open at the time on a different browser and double/treble checked.) I've done a cut and paste now from the actual email a/c. It looks the same but maybe preferences was reading something that isn't on the screen. Fingers crossed this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't get bounces from using wikipedia email, I was replying to the mail you sent me. If you've changed the address, please send me a fresh mail or something. --fvw* 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)