Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 22 November 2007

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user is a member of the United States Armed Forces and may be away from Misplaced Pages for long periods of time, but will most likely return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

Archives
Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007 Oct 2007 Nov 2007

Possibly Unfree Image - Lovemakers

I had checked on an image you had tagged for copyright violation (Image:051706lm12.jpg). I put my full response on the IFD page, but I was wondering if there was any procedure to go through about contacting possible copyright holders to double check the photo's status. - Optigan13 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ilanijanovic.wg.am spam

Hi - spotted the Meta req. I still think this might be sorted at a local level. You've done a final warning for the user - if they place again feel free to nudge me and we'll try a block first maybe? Cheers --Herby 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at ] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at ] with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on ].

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Trapper (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

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) 10:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

24.19.33.82

Please don't do this. I am trying very hard to broker a deal here. It isn't easy and every side has been having a go at me. Your involvement is highly counterproductive. Step away and let the IP speak for itself. This isn't the sort of block that can just be overturned by another admin - consensus is needed. WjBscribe 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the block was righteous? Videmus Omnia 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the account was Mywikibiz - the "meatpuppet" claim is more complex. However the account has done things since that block that I would support a block for. The problem from the fact that it was a response to perceived unfair treatment. As with all these scenarios the ideal scenario is for these parties to avoid each other. That won't be possible unless either Durova/Jehochman know what the user's account is or then 3 of them are able to agree a number of people who will know the name of the account and agree to enforce the deal. The situation is far from ideal for either side but seems better than the alternative. Lets wait for a response from 24.19.33.82 - find out what is and isn't acceptable to that person. WjBscribe 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are Durova and Jehochman worried is going to happen? This seems to me to be a disingenuous attempt to force the person to reveal information they already stated that they don't want to. If Durova/Jehochman don't know who it is, then it's pretty unlikely they're not going to run into some random user among thousands. And if they happen to by accident, it's not like the anon can complain about it anyway. Let the person have their privacy, they've been hassled enough. Videmus Omnia 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly a point they can make - I have laid out a possible proposals. I want them to respond to it and say what is or isn't acceptable to them. If they or one of the others reject the agreement we are back at square one, which is ArbCom investigating the matter. I very much doubt any admin will unblock in the midst of an ArbCom case without the consent of everyone. May way really is best - the proposal laid out isn't final, its just something to get the ball rolling. WjBscribe 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody is blameless here, but the whole situation was precipitated by an admin screwup, I think the best solution would simply be to go back to status quo ante, with the IP unblocked and the other involved parties just going their separate ways without sanction. But it's wrong to punish the IP for editing with open proxies (after being provoked), and for the blocking admins not to be held accountable also. There's no reason that ArbCom can't continue their investigation with the IP unblocked, and if the IP screws up and is blocked for something else, that simplifies the investigation, doesn't it? Videmus Omnia 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We cannot say "its OK to edit with open proxies" if provoked. And sending a series of harassing emails to the blocking admin is also not acceptable. If the IP were unblocked for not being a Mywikibiz sock it would undoubtedly be blocked for the latter offences. Better to come to a position where everyone agrees to the unblock. Please I'm trying to coordinate this with a number of involved parties and to keep ArbCom up to date. Having to juggle your questions isn't helping. If at the end of it you are disatisfied with the conclusion, make your protests then. WjBscribe 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Recent Comments on AN/I

Hi! Apologies in advance, I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I found the following comment most illuminating:

You know as well as I do that referring an anon editor to the ArbCom for a block review is just a roundabout way of telling them to 'get bent' if the block was done by a longtime editor like Durova.

Would you be willing to reiterate this point at the incident subpage? I think it's important, because this seems to be the thrust of developing "consensus", and what you've said seems plausible, though I'm too ignorant to be sure. If you'd rather not, or have changed your assessment, I completely understand, and thank you for your time. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't really back it up with any evidence, it's just common wisdom I've picked up by observation here. Also, I've been the victim of idiotic and wrong blocks myself, and the first time especially I had a hell of a time getting unblocked just because I was new. I got treated like shit, but I was persistent enough that I finally got unblocked. That's why I have a pretty low tolerance for high-handed admins. Videmus Omnia 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering (and so quickly, too!). Lack of evidence seems to be the latest meme (ie the underlying issue, no disrespect). Sadly, I understand your quandary, which (IMO) doesn't bode well for a meaningful resolution. I wish I was surprised. Thanks again, and while I generally frown on intolerance (a necessary irony), in your case I approve. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your service to our country. - Jehochman 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment/Durova

Please just do it already.

While I have little faith it will be anything but a re-hashing of the petty squabbling already seen, at least it will be a contained squabbling.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it but have little hope the work would accomplish anything. I actually voted to delete RfC/User conduct not long ago because it's so useless. If Durova had honor she would answer the recall request, but apparently that's not the case, sadly. Videmus Omnia 06:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, "honour" is a pretty harsh word here... It's easy to say something, forget you said it, say something else, change your mind, etc. There are two versions of "recall" she's proposed, I'm suggesting you take the second.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrutinizing

O-kaay... Please feel free to utterly ignore this advice, but having had a little hop around your last few contributions, and in particular the response to those contributions, I have some concerns for your "wiki-safety" for lack of a better word.

Just that I know from rude experiance that it can be terribly easy to get blocked for asking straight-forward questions. I'd like you to consider, ahead of time, how you'll respond if that happens. If it does, please be as utterly squeaky-clean as it is humanly possible to be. doubleplusgood behavior will be utterly required of you, lest the death-spiral commence.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've been targeted by unjust blocks before, also. Videmus Omnia 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What a depressingly apt summation of the entire problem. sNkrSnee | t.p. 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"I've been targeted by unjust blocks before.." explains you issue with Ryulong . However a word of caution is advised, those blocks were "reportedly" a result of harasment of at least 3 editors. I'm not arguing the validity of events last June and July, I am concerned about the 6 admins recently you have chosen to direct scrutiny towards. This may become a very serious matter per Misplaced Pages:Harassment. This sort of behavior is blockable on its own especially if the blocking Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. Just step lighty and don't chose, in pursuit of a certain point, to reject input that your edits may be percieved as harassing. You've made great contributions, please chose the right path. I may dissagree with some of your edits, however, I don't want to see you blocked--Hu12 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your warning, Hu12. Look into those so-called "harassment" accusations from Ryulong's earlier block before talking about it, because he bought an RfC shortly after that. However, I would sincerely welcome your input on how any of my recent questions of admin conduct are not valid ones - particularly Ryulong's blocks. And please, explain to me the part of WP:HARASS I am violating, I can't wait to hear it. Videmus Omnia 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and see this. Videmus Omnia 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not arguing the validity of events last June and July. However reasonable Wikipedians may conclude that your recent pursuits are harassment. You don't need to be impressed, just heed the warning. --Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please give me some clue how my recent edits are a violation of WP:HARASS. Videmus Omnia 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my last comment. You have been asked by both Ryulong and Durova to stop the repeated questioning. Misplaced Pages has proper venues for this. Take your concerns and evidence directly to the Arbitration Committee. Don't harass them on their talk pages. --Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians in the United States Armed Forces