User talk:Banzai!/Archive1

Mac users

Because the category says "Wikipedians by technology" and "Wikipedians by operating system." It is meant for Wikipedians only. Crumbsucker 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. What category can I start to make "Mac users" a real category? Or can I just "be bold" and edit those qualifications out? Disgusted 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a separate category for non-wikipedians, but read this first to make sure it qualifies as notable. Crumbsucker 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mac users" would seem to be a much more natural and appropriate name for such a category. Would it be possible to rename the existing "Mac users" category to "Wikipedian Mac users"? Is there some sort of process for this? Thanks. Disgusted 01:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think I've got a good start on figuring out categorization. Your pointer to WP:Categorization was really helpful, so thanks for that. Disgusted 01:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to vote. :-) Banzai! 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the sandbox appropriately!

Just as a reminder, please do NOT place obscene language on the sandbox or delete the sandbox header -Ruff 03:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I'm pretty sure I didn't. If you mean the "This is stupid!" in this revision, I didn't write that—someone else added that to text I'd already written. —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:POINT

Please avoid WP:POINT; for example, this edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

Please refrain from leaving edit summaries like this. Thanks. --Elliskev 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please indicate the full name of the individual who took this photo and their release of it to you. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (→Netscott) 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, the page specifies exactly who created the content (me) and the precise copyright status of the image (public domain). I looked extensively into the requirements prior to uploading, and I believe the image description page contains more information than necessary to justify its presence on Wikimedia servers. What further information needs to be provided? —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that simple cropping of a given image does not confer to you rights to the cropped image. You've not specified who the original source for the image was nor demonstrated that the original source (your friend) released the image into the public domain therefore the image is a candidate for speedy deletion. This is why the image was originally deleted. (→Netscott) 02:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But as I already described on the page itself, the image was released into the public domain yesterday, specifically so I could edit it and freely upload it to Wikipedia. I'm not seeing what the problem is. —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your labeling the source of the image simply as "your friend" is not sufficient to establish the source of the image nor that the image was released into the public domain. (→Netscott) 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What more is necessary, indeed possible, than what the image description already offers? Should I ask Clare herself to create a Wikipedia account using her full name and personally add some kind of testimonial to the image page? That's unreasonable, I think; if this were so, 99% of the images on Wikipedia would be disallowed, and this is obviously not the case. —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed all details of the image should be included. The full name of the photographer, the date (and preferrably the time) and location where the image was taken. As well an actual statement from the photographer releasing the image needs to be included. (→Netscott) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen these requirements on any other public domain image on Wikipedia. Please point to some kind of policy, or even evidence that this constitutes some kind of consistent existing practice, and then I'll consider asking Clare for her "full name... date (and preferably the time) and location... actual statement from the photographer." Otherwise, I have to assume your intent is simple harassment. —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, even if these requirements were standard policy, they would be entirely useless. What's to stop someone from just making up these details? What's to stop me from making them up for Claire right here, right now? (Other than my impeccable sense of moral duty, of course.) :-P —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this tag and note (creator):

{{PD-self}}

This section of US (where the Wikimedia servers are located) copyright law and the US Copyright Office Circular 14 about "derivative works". As to your accusation of "harassment", are you familar with Wikipedia's assume good faith policy? (→Netscott) 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard template that gets thrown up on the page when you use {{PD-retouched-user|username}} on the image upload page ("remarking that a previous PD work has been digitally enhanced, and re-released into public domain by a Wikipedian"). See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Other_public_domain_images. I'll go back and retag the image page more specifically; can you check in a couple minutes to see if the more specific tags make it through your gauntlet o’hoops? —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag I specified is in fact not {{PD-retouched-user|username}} but {{PD-self}} therefore until Claire (or Clare) releases the original image that you've cropped properly there's really nothing you yourself can do. (→Netscott) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is indeed Clare, not "Claire." And as I've stated repeatedly, she agreed to release the image into the public domain before I ever touched it. There would appear to be no more appropriate tag for this situation than {{PD-retouched-user|username}}—your suggestion of {{PD-self}} would be appropriate had I made more modifications than a simple crop, but as it is, my changes aren't substantial enough to warrant the reassignment of copyright (as you yourself seem to have noted, albeit in a gross misinterpretation of applicability, above). Exactly what further insane requirements are you seeking to impose here? —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already specified what needs to be added above. Since you are not the original source for the original image the full details of the original image needs to be added. (→Netscott) 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're in luck. She just got home. —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow threats

Don't make hollow threats over 3RR. Reverting vandalism (including "avoidant vandalism") is permitted by WP:3RR. Again, some friend of yours named "Clare K." is not a source that anyone can verify as having released the original image into public domain. (→Netscott) 06:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Image talk:IMG_3006 crop.jpg. Basically, please stop being intentionally obtuse. —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. (→Netscott) 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for a source here. (→Netscott) 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, but it's become increasingly clear over the past 24 hours that you're nothing more than a petty little turd with a hard-on for obnoxious, distant expression of your tiny rage. What pleasure could you possibly gain from your crusade against a personal photo, uploaded in hopes that it would be useful, and which was clearly sourced (according to Wikipedia standards and existing protocol) and that was proposed as a free-use replacement for a fair-use image? I suppose nobody will ever know, except for you, and perhaps your psychiatrist. Please seek help. —Banzai! (talk) @ 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although to a certain extent I do understand your inclination to personally attack me with your commentary, for your benefit I'm going to cite Wikipedia's no personal attack policy. This is because your statements constitute personal attacks and while I'm not going to take steps against you relative to them I feel that you should be aware that if you make such personal attacks in the future you will likely be blocked. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because clearly you’ve got the moral high ground here. (rolls eyes) Let this be a matter of public record: User:Banzai! has been quoted, moments ago, as expressing a sentiment of vitriol directed at User:Netscott consisting wholly of the words “Go fuck yourself.” The preceding is a statement of fact, not opinion. —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I fail to respect those who feign a poor understanding of Wikipedia’s policy on image use in the sole pursuit, apparently, of harassing willing contributors—i.e., you. I’ll admit your motives remain unclear to me, but it’s still my belief that people like you have given up the right to be treated nicely. Particularly by those on the receiving end of your disingenuous baloney. —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson image, again

Hi! I was wondering if you had read my comments about getting Clare to transfer copyright to you. I think this could be done verbally. Since it is the identity of the copyright holder (who is often, but not always the same as the source) that is being questioned, if this became yourself then I think this issue would go away... Lupin|talk|popups 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw those comments. Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks also for stepping in and being reasonable about the whole thing. The truth is, I don't care enough to try reuploading the photo (oh look, it's gone), I know that Clare definitely won't care, and the photo is, let's face it, terrible—though I thought it'd be nice to have a public domain alternative to the publicity photo currently gracing Mel's article. See if I'm ever stupid enough to contribute again. :-P —Banzai! (talk) @ 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive incivility and violation of our policy of no personnal attacks. When your block is up, please be civil with the other users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Banzai! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

Provocation is not a valid excuse.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, Tom. I understand the reason for your block, but I believe it to be unfair—my comments above are only a response, in kind, to persistent accusations of vandalism from, and unreasonable demands by, User:Netscott, the latter of which pertained to the copyright status of an image I uploaded a couple days ago. I don’t think I should be expected to sit back and take this harassment from User:Netscott without defending myself, as above. I’d appreciate it if you’d look into his recent edits and, if you deem it appropriate, unblock my account—this dispute with User:Netscott is only a small part of my recent edits. —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting block on User:Netscott for persistent harassment

Supporting evidence:

Image talk:IMG_3006 crop.jpg – Is now deleted, thanks to Netscott’s out-of-policy determination to have it removed, but if you can read it through undeletion, you'll see several editors commenting on Netscott's unreasonable and obnoxious behavior towards myself.
Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Banzai.21_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29
Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netscott_and_Image:IMG_3006_crop.jpg
Other talk pages as linked from the bottom of User talk:Netscott, for insight into his character.

Frankly, I have a feeling the only reason I’ve been blocked instead of User:Netscott is that he’s familiar with the procedure for requesting a block, and I, until now, was not.

—Banzai! (talk) @ 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock—or at least evenhandedness

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Banzai! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See below.

Decline reason:

Per above. Someone elses behaviour is no excuse for your own, FWIW I agree with Netscott concerning that Images sourcing, as did the admin who ultimately deleted it. Mere agreement of a few editors is not sufficient, copyright issues are a serious matter

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It seems strange that I should be blocked while User:Netscott receives the benefit of the doubt, apparently because he posted to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard before I did.

For example, he has violated WP:3RR by persistently retagging Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg as unsourced, despite the agreement of myself and at least two other editors that the image had proper attribution. (The image page is gone, thanks to Netscott’s dishonest obstinacy, but you can see lingering signs of debate with other editors in his recent contributions.) I understand violation of 3RR to be a blockable offense.

—Banzai! (talk) @ 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the personnal attacks you made on Netscott.

[1]
[2]

Where are his on you? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my edits "vandalism" and smearing me on the administrator's noticeboard, for starters. On top of that, harassing me by apparently singling out that image I uploaded as a target for deletion, even though other editors agreed that it didn't meet deletion criteria. Finally, WP:3RR. I don’t want to make this a he-started-it-first sort of thing, but as far as gross disregard of Wikipedia:Civility goes, well, “he started it first.” Apologies for the rambling response. —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Netscott’s concern about the image’s source is just plain wrong. It’s tantamount to reverting every edit ever made (text and images) because, well, you can’t know for sure the contributor didn’t rip it off some copyrighted source. Were Netscott’s requirements imposed across Wikipedia, the website would never have progressed beyond a blank page.

Finally, I think there can be little doubt that Netscott violated 3RR (see the last item on his talk page for independent confirmation) and should therefore be subject to a block, which would be at least as appropriate as the block applied to yours truly.

—Banzai! (talk) @ 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mechanism for reporting 3RR violations. If he has commited one, someone will see it and report it. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you understand our policies on civility and personnal attacks, and plan to follow them from now on, I will unblock you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’d appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time to look into this dispute. Could you recommend a way—not necessarily blocking, but maybe some sort of administrator intervention—to make User:Netscott aware of the resentment and ire his behavior inspires among contributors? I read in the New Yorker that Wikipedia can be hostile to new users, but in my experience most people have been really nice; it's probably only the rare exception, like Netscott, who gives Wikipedia its reputation. If I may pontificate. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Check out dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll hold off on WP:DR for now. —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I may not have agreed with some edits you made to Mel Gibson, I do support you with regards to the image thing. I suffered the same, continuous obtuse opposition to the insertion of a valid image on the basis that in a prior discussion regarding fair use vs free image Netscott "lost". His aproach however is unhelpful in the extreme (see user talk:Koncorde ). I believe your image fulfilled all requirements (as I saw it) but was 'blocked' through and by overboard, and targetted bureaucracy.--Koncorde 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Koncorde—thanks for saying so. :-) FWIW, I disagreed with his vendetta against your image, too. I've decided for the time being to steer clear of [wonderful, beautiful people], and that includes Netscott. —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]