User talk:Diletante/Archive01

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. -- feb^talk 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for leaving the first real comment on my talk page. woohhoo! Diletante 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hot knives

Stop changing the article on hot knives, the hot knife century does exist and I created the premise and have spread it so stop deleting it, it's just as well cited as anything else you've written about hot knives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.138.20.135 (talk • contribs).

Since you say you created the idea, you should read WP:MADEUP. -- Diletante 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright concerns with Frederick John Gladman

This is in response to your post on my talk page.

Yes, please take the article in question to AfD for consideration. I am rather new to copyright evaluations, but I do not think it qualifies as a 'blatent copyright violation'. I will make a statement at the AfD. Thank you for informing me of your intentions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobdobbs.jpg removed from your user page

An image or media file, Image:Bobdobbs.jpg, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

Iamunknown 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Ddball

It is probably inappropriate to involve yourself, Diletante, on a subject you have no interest in. Were I you, I would ask someone who knows what they were talking about to examine the subject. Try not to personalise this, I'm trying to show you how you may become a good wiki editor. DDB 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you my interest is only in improving Wikipedia, and I will involve myself to the extent appropriate under Wikipedia policies as an editor. -- Diletante 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick John Gladman AFD

It looked to me like there were multiple votes both for keeping and deleting on grounds of notability. I would have voted to Keep based on the listing in the Australian national biography dictionary (I've been working on adding articles from the similar American National Biography). Given that, I didn't see a consensus to delete. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (drug)

How about fixing the vandalism on Cannabis (drug) article? I see that you are the last to edit that article, but you still need to remove the reference to GHB at the end of the Relationship to other drugs section. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.55 (talk • contribs).

Reply to user:Seicer

Thanks for the support. Unfortunately, I was piled on by three admins, and while that may be acceptable to them, it unfairly penalizes me for just following the standard. I don't think some assumed good faith by placing rather rude comments about my edits, but it is three admins versus one. As you might have found out, I corrected the admin's misactions by citing my previous edits, but I decided in the end that it wasn't worth it. I'm taking a small wikibreak to focus on my other web-sites mainly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recent events did factor into me stepping back a bit. I'm still around... just not as much. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion and User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly, User:Seicer, User:Martinp23, User:N, User:kingboyk, User:Moreschi

I contend that

Oh_yEs_itS_caRly was operating in good faith when she uploaded images of herself, but she should not have created a user page and images could be percieved as violating criteria #1 and #2 WP:NOT#MYSPACE.
Seicer was operating in good faith when speedying and then listing these images for deletion, but should not have templated the regulars excessively, and should have brought up the issue with a personal note on Oh_yEs_itS_caRly's user talk page.
Users Martinp23, N, kingboyk, and Moreschi were operating in good faith when they asked Seicer to be more polite, but should have been more civil themselves and made more of an effort to assume good faith on the part of that user.
N was operating in good faith when restoring Oh_yEs_itS_caRly's user page under WP:BOLD, but should respect that user's decision to blank her user page.
All editors mentioned are valuable contributors.
Its silly that wikipedia lose 2 valuable contributors over this issue.

If you think any of my contentions are wrong please say why, I would like to be corrected. I can explain why I think each one is true.

I propose that

All parties state that they were operating in good faith, that they believe the other parties were too, and that they apologize for any perceptions to the contrary. (even if you don't agree with all my contentions.
If Oh_yEs_itS_caRly wants to return she can choose a few pics of herself to keep.

--Diletante 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N proclaims that

I was informed of this discussion, I've looked at it, and frankly I'm speechless. There's nothing to start a mini-rfc over. The incident is over, apologies have been issued, it's time to move on. The people will come back and the apologies will still be written on their talk pages when they do. It's over. The images are already listed at ifd, they will either be deleted or not. Not "she can choose". It's over. I'm going home, and I'm taking my ball with me. -N 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am precisely trying to avoid "people taking their balls and going home." It is obviously that it is not over, and that feelings are still hurt. If you say you are done with the issue, would you mind if I restored User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly to the way she left it before you restored an old version? -- Diletante 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would, because that would orphan images you are trying to improperly get deleted. See User_talk:Seicer#Congratulations for an indication of how improper the nomination was. -N 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at that conversation and and adreesed it with my comments above. One could just as easily think that you are trying to keep those images from being deleted. The user removed them from her user page and I think we should respect her edit. -- Diletante 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was driven away. If you can't see that difference you just continue to leave me astonished. -N 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between what and what? I cannot read minds on wikipedia. I can only look at a users' comments and edit history. In this case the edit history shows me that she blanked the page. Are you sugesting that you know what she wants more than she does?-- Diletante 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See her talk page. "Forget it I'm leaving". No mind-reading needed. -N 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, and we should respect that decision, as well as her edit blanking her own user page. -- Diletante 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're daft. Tell you what, I will support the re-blanking of the page, but only if the ifd closes as delete on all of those images. -N 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That personal attack on me is leading me to question your good faith. I am going to restore the last version of the user page as User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly left it (which is blank.) Sorry we couldn't agree. -- Diletante 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted it back and continue to assume bad faith in your edit summaries, I will revert one more time and then post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and let others decide what is appropriate. -- Diletante 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(restart block) That's getting old. Please seek out other comments at WP:ANI -- and please have the current admins involved in the incident recuse themselves on final judgement for a fair discussion. The user has left Wikipedia; there is no reason to keep the images. They are all listed at IFD for UE anyhow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it was already posted upon my comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I looked "daft" up in the dictionary. Sorry about that. And of course it's now over, the images have been deleted. I shall bother you no more. -N 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am very sorry I questioned your motives, and I undertand that you are just trying to help. -- Diletante 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer's reply

I felt that I was operating in good faith in trying to remove the images. I made a mistake by applying the images for speedy delete when I misinterpreted WP:NOT#MYSPACE, for which I have apologised for already. I then applied for IFDs on the images.
I was later gangpiled by three admins (one seeking another opinion, another seeking another opinion, etc.) at here. That felt itimidating and overwhelming, and is part of the reason why I am talking a wikibreak. I have no hard feelings towards any admin that or user that has discussed it on my talk page. They are only doing their duty as an admin and had a right to notify me, but in the future, please assume I had the best intentions.
I was accused of biting the new user despite the fact Oh_yEs_itS_caRly (talk · contribs) was not exactly a new user.
I then had to defend myself many times from Martinp23 (talk · contribs) who most likely misinterpreted my intentions on the removal of the images. I had to provide proof that was clearly stated on the page histories, and felt as if I was being targeted for my good-faith edits.
I used standard templates per instruction on the speedy image delete page, and later refreshed them when I applied for IFDs. Another editor combined them. That didn't stop me from being accused of not using the proper templates: "the message I see on the talk page now didn't come from a template".
Moreschi (talk · contribs) then stated that I needed to be "gentle" and "calm" -- and while I agree that the templates probably overwhelmed Carley, they are per standard. I did nothing wrong in that regard.
Kingboyk (talk · contribs) did not assume assume good faith and even resorted to a personal attack here.
Overall, you don't see me going all haywire on their talk pages. I did what any editor would: Apply for the proper template and notify the user on the talk page on the image that is up for deletion. Let me reiterate: There is nothing wrong with doing that. It's not "biting" the user, it's not assuming bad faith, and it's not a personal attack. While I may have caused her to leave, I take full responsibility for that and feel very much guilty. But please do not pin the whole situation on me, when I was just following policy. If I had not notified her on the images being deleted, then I would have been critised for not doing so, right? Double standard... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to take a reality check mate (or at least go and reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA). Assume good faith means "assume good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary". You were over-zealous, including nominating for deletion an image I'd declined to speedy delete, and violated one of our most cardinal rules: do not bite the newbies! Furthermore, I may well have been sarcastic, with very good reason, but in no way was it a personal attack. Was I mad to see a keen new user driven away? Oh yes. Mad as hell: we just don't hound newbies like that, not if they're showing promise as genuine Wikipedians. All that said, I'm not seeing any need for this discussion. Seicer apologised and I accepted; the user in question has been invited to return and it's up to her whether or not to accept. I certainly assume good faith in believing that Seicer has learnt from the incident and thus don't see any point in prolonging this. --kingboyk 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer has apologized, but I have not seen similar statements from everyone who he percieved uncivilty from. Not everyone may agree which rules are "cardinal." Just as Carly percieved insult from good faith application of a rule, so I think Seicer percieved insult from the "three admin pileup" as he called it. If we want seicer to be more considerate in the application of rules we should extend him the same courtesy. Thanks for you comment! -- Diletante 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinp23 doth hereby affirm...

that this mini RfC is a very honourable pursuit, for which Diletante should be commended.
that all parties should follow the second step of dispute resolution - disengage, find something else to do
that he was wondering whether this mini-RfC was worth responding to, given that it seems to be blowing stuff out of proportion
that he has no doubt whatsoever that Seicer tagged the images in the best of faith. It is, instead, his subsequent behaviour even after having been reprimanded (to an extent) on the noticeboard, that has caused the issues that we're (still?!) discussing. Seicer misapplied the policy surrounding the use of wikipedia as a venue for socialising, and even when corrected, persisted in his determination that he was correct, despite a message on ANI, multiple messages from myself, and a single, highly clueful message from Moreschi.
that in WP:BITE, the term "new" is relative, and that the policy can (in some cases) even apply to brand new administrators (none of the involved fit this category)
that everyone assumed good faith at the outset
that Seicer's labeling of my comments as "garbage" and "nonsense" was impropitious in the extreme.
that Seicer's refusal to allow me a reprieve from the magic yellow bar was childish, given that all of the context existed on his talk page. Also, that this made no sense given that Seicer was copying his responses to his talk page anyway!?
that Seicer took the right step in apologising to the user in question, and is to be commended
that, like all of us, Seicer needs to learn from everything in this, and avoid making the same mistakes in the future
that "the use of templates" is not a valid excuse for BITEing. Templates are there to help us to put a message across - one should be aware of what is overkill with regards to templates, and ho to use them properly. The most important thing is to talk to the user, and not just slap more and more templates on their page (many are guilty of this, so this is more of "how it should be" than a "how it is")
that Wikipedia Adminstrators are in a position of trust, and are in a position of very strong policy knowledge, hence it is only to be expected that it is admins who are left with the job of laying down both policy and etiquette to other editors
that fair use images should be removed from user pages
that "being unencyclopedic" is not an excuse for image deletion!
that WP:MYSPACE does not apply to edits with significant main space contribs. As I've said elsewhere, this policy can only apply if someone has come here and has almost all of their edits in the user(talk) spaces, and are making no useful contributions. In such a case, clue should be applied, and a block may be issued
that BITEing the newbies is a form of disruption, and can result in a block (though hopefully never with any of the involved in this case)
that this has gone on long enough, and that if Seicer or Diletante feel that there is still an issue present, they should firstly disengage, and then take it to ANI or AN.

Thanks - on a side note to Diletante: although this pursuit, as I noted above, reflects excellently upon yourself, it is generally not a good idea to try to mediate disputes in which you are involved, or to express a firm opinion in those disputes (I am, of course, referring to the discussion with N above). Martinp23 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this just too funny: "that Seicer's refusal to allow me a reprieve from the magic yellow bar was childish" I lend comments on other people's talk pages, to notify them that I have replied and to keep consistency. I also sometimes leave my replies on my talk page if I feel that it is important enough to the discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate why you replied on my talk page at the start, but I fail to see why you continued when I had made clear that I was able to use a watchlist, with your user talk page on. I'm sure that any onlookers would find a discussion spread over both of our talk pages much more difficult to comprehend, hence my reason for asking you to keep it on one page (normally I'd choose my own page as the venue, but as the context to the issues existed on yours, I chose otherwise). Anyway, that's just a lesson on how to avoid annoying people - take it or leave it (the latter, I'd guess!). Martinp23 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Martinp23. My goal with my comments was not to rehash all the issues involved, but to get everyone to agree that we all understand why others acted how they did, and also understand how other might not see things the same way, perhaps I was a bit naive to think that I could such a simple statement out of everyone, but thats ok. I don't think this is so much of a dispute as a case where things might be patched up by a few kind words (i know many parties have expressed kind words, but I kind of hoped for an explicit statement of good faith from everyone.). -- Diletante 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain silly

What a waste. "Bruised feelings" is not a reason not to consider a matter closed. If there's one rule of templates, it's don't template the regulars, and don't template the newbies, especially not the good-faith ones. This is not a matter of policy, or guidelines. It's a matter of cluefulness, something that was lacking. Templates are wonderful, but they have to be used the proper way. Talk to people, don't template them. Just this morning I blocked a user for 9RR. Not a bad user, but he was not being clueful as to how to handle conflict. Clue levels sometimes need adjusting. Yes, playing by the rules is wonderful, but good-faith users who have slightly iffy userpages need to be handled cluefully. I have no doubt that Seicer was acting in the best of good faith, but he was not being clueful while doing so. He seems to have learnt the lesson, which was what was meant to happen. Nothing else to discuss, can we all move on? Moreschi ^Talk 11:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, even if you do think this is silly. Those rules you mentioned obviously have merit, but we can't expect everyone to know every policy essay, or have the same clue-level if you will. We can even expect two cluefull people to disagree given the same clues. My point is that notifying someone of their cluelessness is also an action that should be done with great care, and I feel that some of the comments direted toward siecer could have phrased in a kinder way. Thanks for your comment. -- Diletante 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caduceus vs Rod of Asclepius

See Template_talk:Psychiatry#Yet_another_image_suggestion. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you Merge, or Unmerge and article? =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sup3rior (talk • contribs).

Re: Your question on the help desk

You asked what to do about a bunch of images uploaded by a particular user in apparent violation of licensing requirements. WP:IFD is the most obvious address, though you should check to see if the images meet any speedy deletion criteria. You can simplify the work of IFD admins by organizing the images in a single list, by identifying the upload log of the user who uploaded these images. It goes without saying that you should leave this user a message, explaining what the problem is, so that he/she won't make that mistake again. If you need further assistance, please leave me a note. Shalom ^Hello 03:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia noms

I fixed it, almost. The history for "7th" is still showing in "9th"s history, I dunno how to undo that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thx for the revert on my user page... κaτaʟaveno^T_C 10:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shatilov

Thanks for attention. We are divided not by a language barrier, and a different sight at the same things. Probably, that I have not understood some supervising principles. I try to learn it.Shatilov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatilov Konstantin (talk • contribs) 06:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]