WPPilot started editing the Signpost, AND I swear I NEVER asked him to start editing it regularely. The first incident was when he never checked what he was writing, when making a description on the featured subject, saying the Capitol was finished in 1800 - a factual error. I covered up that.
But he never stopped to edit in is this sloppy way, he just went on and just non-stop copied everything from the articles, and took everything, pasted it in, with IPAs, sometimes ever references included, than he expected that we should fix that. It is just as much work, if not more to do so, It is to no help. Doing Signpost was something I enjoyed, that gradually was getting worse, because of this editor, it would have been better if he never did anything at all,- because it was just as much work fixing his entries than doing it all by yourself. He was doing just more incoherent, sloppy editing. We had discussions on his edits User talk: Adam Cuerden#Featured content, (mind it is entry Nr 181), but he carried on the same way. Also, here, and he never stopped copying. Here, the very last issue - he was copying my own words, on top of everything, [5] and [6] and made it so badly that nobody understood my comment 'so much for an unicorn cos he never ever EXPLAINED it at all, that unicorns prefer virgins. How could anyone expect that people should get the comment it he doesn't explain it - they are not supposed to know that.
The borderline crazy - clearly out of your mind that was this mistake. Phil who corrects my spelling errors all over the place, realized much faster what is this all about. But Pilot, he went on complaining at Gamaliel's user calls me potential murderer. I explained above - I was shouring at in the main street by some old guy who ... read it. [7]
Than Ed comes rushing saying I am a troll. [8]. Are administrators allowed to carry on like this? He previously called me sexist too, accusing me for adding sexist degrading comments towards women. None of that was true. Not even close. Nobody ever called me a troll here under my entire carrier. I perceive this as a most serious accusation, and even wors than sexist. Also the Skype program ... well, I think one should discuss things openly. Somewhere this has to end, and and it ends here. User:Ex-Hafspajen (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ed didn't call you a sexist troll: he was talking about two comments, from unrelated discussions, and he didn't say it about you. On the other hand, WPPilot, this was pretty assholish and really counts as a personal attack. Hafspajen, I hope to see you around soon. If all else fails, consider doing what I sometimes do: stick with the articles and stay away from the chat. Or log in to one of your sock accounts... Drmies (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers
Excellent! - I looked at it yesterday in detail and agree. - Regarding the above: you need to say it loud and stomp on the ground at the same time! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xanthomelanoussprog, I have been told to stay away from Signpost and the editor, unless I go Skype. I simply have nowhere to bring up this issue. And I don't believe in a group editors going off-wiki for discussing issues there; - like the Signpost editorial staff editors - instead of doing it on-Wiki. Also I think text should be rewritten and not copied from articles, too. The main issue here has always been that it is required per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. But any times the issue was raised:
It was met by incivility by this editor, some diff above; mixed with occasional apologies, and then it was starting all over again, while nobody else took the issue seriously. I did try to discuss this several times, nobody listened. Calling someone ungrateful, unproductive, rude, childish, borderline, full of shit, ridiculous and crazy are WP:Personal attacks.
Nobody took the copyvio issue seriously either, nor the incivility the editor reacted with towards me. But it is required per WP:CWW:
Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution.
See at WP:CWW. As stated I did try to discuss this with several occasions, nobody listened. Editor was reacting with increasing incivility when pointed out, escalating more and more, every time. There is no need to gather evidence (here is one), the whole last couple Signpost editions are full with bits and parts of copivio. Last it was me who was the author copied. But it went so far that Signpost chief editors were telling me not to criticize editor but stay away from him. Like here, this, for example, in the current Signpost version is entirely taken from the article Shakespearean tragedy. In the current version is not even a link provided to the article. Is not even linked to painter, nor tho the to right article, King Lear. Some of the descriptions include unexplained terms and generally look taken from somewhere. However providing a link to article is not attribution. Nobody ever discussed anything with me, about the issues raised above. And let's not forget the other parallel issue: the incivility, that erupted with every occasion this was brought up. I was told to discus it on Skype or nowhere. Now the editor was forbidding me to contact him, and the Signpost redaction is going off-Wiki to discuss where I never joined them. The e-mail I enabled for the Signpost-folks, it collapsed and is not working any more.
Hafspajen, disruptive editor
Is this: One of the most famous paintings of all time?
All this caused that I now have been accused by being disruptive, causing months of passive aggressive and intentional attacks, mainly because of the other editor said so, without taking up any diffs or providing any evidence for it. He never digged up any evidence himself at all, but expected everybody to believe him without any evidence at all. And actually in fact, there is no such diffs to support his claims. But I think some people indeed believed him. Like most of the Signpost editorial staff, I guess (guess because I have no idea what's going on behind the scene).
This is the kind of editor who was accusing me off being disruptive, but who for example placed an image of a fruitcake on a talk page of an user who identifies as being gay - (fruitcake is here), and who is involved in plenty of conflicts and controversies, an editor who (without providing any evidence for his claims) requires simply everybody just believes him. The whole Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:WPPilot is worth reading trough. It was bad of me to AGF him so easily I did, I should have checked the rather huge amount of conflicts he was already involved, when started editing Signpost. Others should have done that too. But the only thing anybody seemingly ever cared or remarked on was me offending (?) the editor, well, that was the typo. Now pick your choice if you believe that was trolling or not. One editor gifted with analytic ability remarked something here - and I say, she is totally right about my spelling (unfortunately) ... I think it is rather more balanced than the comment The user has now called me a potential murderer, though it looks like many believed the later comment.
One of the most famous paintings of all time?
And may I ask why current Signpost Featured content is saying Napoleon Crossing the Alps is one of the most FAMOUS paintings OF ALL TIME?
Because it is simply not true.
But under a whole week, nobody ever noticed it.
This newspaper is going out all over Wiki and it has a tremendous NPOV mistake in it. Guess who put than into it.
If one chose to use big peacock words than at least use them well, and truthfully. Napoleon Crossing the Alps, is one of the very moderately famous paintings, but no way one of the most famous paintings of all time. I would say that it is not that famous at all. Check refs.
Some find it stiff and lifeless, proof of David’s ineptness at capturing movement. Some see it not as art, but propaganda, pure and simple. Some snigger at its overblown, action-packed, cliff-hanging momentousness, with shades of “Hi ho Silver, away!” Some have it down as a sort of beginning of the end moment in David’s career, before he officially became Napoleon’s artist-lackey.
The only thing one might safely say of that painting that it is one of the most well know (famous*) portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte . (There are other; just as famous portraits of Napoleon, by the way.) It is a good painting, it deserves to be a FP, BUT IT IS not one of the most famous paintings of all time. This kind of remarks give bad reputation to Signpost, if any editor who knows about art discovers it, and there is a fair amount of art presented there every week.
And
I do think that before theses issues started with the editor joining, our work made Signpost more interesting and fun, and we all worked together fine, under extended periods of time, Adam was sharp, witty and funny, Xanty was doing interesting things and being crazy with his comments, and me contributing on arts, cultural topics, botanic, and occasionally being funny too. We all were getting along greatly. Observe that I never had any issues with any of those, ever, ever. It was great, and may good editions came out of it: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].
Also mark that I did cooperated creatively with a huge amount editors, on articles, FPs, DYKs and so on. I am not known as a person who can't work together with others, as the Signpost redaction is now made to believe; me being constantly involved in a disturbing amount of conflicts with other editors.
Nobody seems to noticed, pointed out or recognized this fact in this conflict.
It was instead Ed who stepped in a rather unfortunate way, at times. His remarks were at times not to well formulated or researched.
This went on parallel to this was the other issue. Ed remarked, though in a polite way, that I made a sexist comment. But if anyone checks the definition of sexism: Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender - than the comment I made in Signpost about an older woman having a relationship with a younger man that can work, well, going by that definition, in fact it is the opposite of a sexist comment. There was no need to remove that. Using the word girl instead ladies, well, might been a point. Burt I had certain difficulties convincing anyone about comment not being sexist. Even bigger difficulties convincing him or Signpost editorial staff I was not trolling. That is kinda hard to digest. And how can I if they only discuss things on Skype?
Copying
About copying; At top of Signpost it say: Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; refer to their page histories for attribution. It doesn't say: Text may be copied from the respective articles and lists without no attribution.
About
going off Wiki, WP:EEML
13) All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chamberswhere there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
(And skip the typo thing, my intention was different, but it is up to those to judge who are perfect, and never make mistakes. Show me something else).
Thank you all who said kind words above. Dr. Blofeld, you gave me a Wiki-defender barnstar on 8 April - I am afraid, I didn't managed to well this time. Apart from my personal feelings seriously hurt, the copivio is still an ongoing issue, and I am kinda banned from discussing it for different reasons. Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Justice, a symbol of justice. She is depicted as a goddess equipped with three items: a sword, symbolising the coercive power of a court; scales, representing an objective standard by which competing claims are weighed; and a blindfold indicating that justice should be impartial and meted out objectively, without fear or favor and regardless of money, wealth, power or identity. [ref Luban, Law's Blindfold, 23. ref]
Why do I don't want to be around more?
Because I have been treated unfair, that's why. I feel I have been unjustly treated. I don't like injustice. Until recently I believed that Wikipedia was a fair system. I don't do that any more.
1) You see, I wonder, how come that nobody ever noticed that I indeed had Wikipedia's best interest in sight?
2) How come that nobody notices that I was trying to do the right thing, all the way through this conflict, or a series of conflicts?
How come that I am now the person who is the guilty part and nobody ever noticed anything else but my so called faults, my mistakes and my issues? Justice is often depicted with her eyes blindfolded. That is a symbol of justice, of not looking at the person, NOT GOING BY PREJUDICES, taking sides, but only by the facts. It is a symbol of judging impartially and not getting blinded by big words, big phrases, rhetoric, but judging the truth and nothing but the truth.
I still like to think I did rather a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia. As I stated above, nominated about c. 100 Featured pictures, completed 29-30 DYKs, wrote about 50 articles, was trying to help other people with their nominations at FP, wrote articles for their nominations when I noticed they nominated a valuable painting, but without EV. I had nothing against sharing things with others, tying to help them, learn them things, protect them sometimes, standing up for them and being there for them, when they needed it.
Now, when I needed help, I look behind me and I don't notice many. I feel cut of, isolated, left alone and notice how people stay away from me and don't want to get involved. There is always an excuse.
The most hurtful thing about this is that I actually was fighting for WWPilot's nominations, those few he ever succeeded to feature, - actually almost half of it - I was engaged and was trying to support and convince others about it. Stupid me.
It was unfortunately also me, who asked him to write his own entry at Signpost, not Adam, as far as I know, even if WPP. nowadays try to say it was different. If supported with any diffs, of course I might believe that.
Also unfortunately, I realized soon that some of WPPilots entries at Signpost were copied. The descriptions made by him included unexplained terms and generally look taken from somewhere; were and are poorly drafted and uninteresting; he was and is often talking about something entirely different thing, than the picture or the painting that was featured.
First I was cleaning up after him, fixing the mess, than pointing out to him his mistakes. Whenever I tried to point this out, he wasn't listening, nobody was listening, and nothing ever changed. He stated himself: "it can be consuming and tough to paraphrase these at times".
But hey, that is exactly what editing the Signpost is about! To write up a summary, to add something interesting, to make it fun and easy to read and a bit educational too! This what is required when editing Signpost Featured Content. But no, he continued the copy and paste, over and over again. Also, his edits were just making more work for others. I tried to cover up and correct, until I got tired.
And so on and on and on. This also made everything a bit boring and heavy. Soon I noticed that literary each and every contribution he adds to Signpost, is indeed nothing else but a copy and paste of the different parts of the articles on Wikipedia (or something the nominator wrote in the nomination, so much worse).
Every time I pointed out the copivio issues to WWPilot, he was reacting with an increasing amount of incivility, trying to do anything; but change. My comments irritated him. It was impossible to have a normal discussion about this with him, he took everything as an aggressiveness directed towards his own person. For some weird reason everybody at Signpost was overlooking this, both WWPilot's incivility and the copivio issues I pointed out, and the fact he doesn't wanted to discuss it or change his editing. This was already happening a month ago, like 10 March. Possibly because of the amount of drama WPPilot was stirred up, and the issue was drowning into. He couldn't discuss this in an objective way, he reacted every time with more and more insults and incivility. Until I decided that while this incivility is going on and nobody is saying a word about it, I will now stay away a while from Signpost.
Edition is late
This happened when nobody reacted at User talk:Adam Cuerden#Maners at the incivility issues, so I stopped for a while editing the Signpost. Thanks to this, the next edition was two days late. Those times I made most of the work, and people were used to leave things to me.
When the edition was late, I got pinged by the newsroom, and decided to put my personal feelings of being hurt by WPPilot's incivility aside, and returned, and save the edition.
I was working all night to get it in shape and publishable. I went to bed 5. 40 o'clock in the morning. When I switched on again; instead of a note like; great, thank you all your work, I was notified that one of the main editors removed a comment I added, remarking that I made a sexist comment. An other editor commented somewhere that the Signpost Featured Content was like a boy's club.
Now that was kinda unfair. I would never make any sexist or derogatory comment on women. The comment removed was not sexist at all, either, actually the opposite, was judged according the answers by only one single woman, it was her opinion, and she never read the whole entry, but was only shown one certain sentence ... and so on.
It felt ridiculous. I knew I was not sexist, I knew the comment was not sexist. But I got the impression of a massive wall of editors, all men, ganging up together against me, keeping their position, making decisions above my head, not ever discussing things with me, and now lecturing me, me, who was (probably) the only woman editor in the Signpost (sic) about making sexist comments. So much for the Gender Gap issues and how to keep women involved at Wikipedia, an issue exactly these editors themselves are often writing about in Signpost. Sigh. After this I did indeed stopped editing Signpost, removed my name from the editors list.
10 April I raised again several issues, this time, because now I was an outsider, and not a co-worker any more, on the Signpost talk, pointing out that WPP. copied my own nomination, - but this was also ignored. (He also credited the wrong person, (me) with a nomination instead of adding the right user, too).
Nothing happened, except for a new wave of wild incivility from WPPilot. During all this period, WPPilot was calling me ungrateful, unproductive, rude, childish, borderline, full of shit, ridiculous and crazy - among other things.
I never responded in kind. But I made a mistake typing a word. English is not my first language. But Pilot convinced the main editors on Signpost that what I did it was deliberate, they gave credit to him, and they did believed him ten, that I was trolling.
WPPilot, when he noticed he had the other editors with him, was now openly accusing me of being disruptive, directing months of passive aggressive and intentional attacks towards him. But when he was asked to, never provided any diffs or any evidence for his claims. In fact, there is no such diffs to support his claims.
Now that is kinda still very weird, and unjust. Nobody ever cared to ask him for any of his accusations to be supported properly. Except for me.
This conflict above made the Signpost main editors requiring off-wiki communication of me, (and a particular venue, on Skype). From now on, the only place where the Signpost main editors were directing me to discuss anything at all, was a discussion, off-Wiki, on Skype.
No way to discuss anything, anywhere, only of Wiki, were, if one wants to look at the issue, it could be seen also this way: they might wanted ton try to isolate me from the others and the possible support I might have received from others.
The Signpost editorial staff was and some still defending WPPilot, were acting on his behalf, forbidding me to go near him and was at a certain point even accusing me by trolling, and on the other hand constantly ignoring the issues raised, and ignoring the fact that he himself was was rude and uncivil.
( *About the trolling issue I accepted Eds apology as he accepted mine, me being rather sarcastic... well, I was. )
But how come that during all this period many just preferred to only notice one side of the problem, and never try to judge things fairly? The only thing I still tried to clear up was the copivio. Somehow. Not a reaction. My latest try was to try to figure out why the Signpost main editors simply refused to discuss issues with me on Wiki. No answer.
Somewhere it was stated that they have to consider WPP. feelings. How come than they never ever though that they had to consider my feelings? Am I not wort just as much as a person?
And, when it comes to the difference in our contributions, well, I think one can notice a certain difference. About WPPilot, I am inclined to think that much of his contributions are WP:NOTHERE mostly self-promotional. He is editwarring to get his own photos in the articles, he is mostly working with his own pictures. WWPilot, from the very beginning, even before starting working at Signpost, was involved in a rather big amount of controversies. Nobody checked this, not me, or nobody else from the editorial staff. He is hot-tempered and was involved in a rather large amount of controversies. There are plenty of diffs: [25][26][27], WPPilot was also blocked for incivility,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. How come that these diffs never talk their own language?
Now that is slightly different from the work I have done on Wikipedia and my efforts put into the project. But if my editing, my edit history and my work om Wikipedia and on Signpost before, is not enough so they should AGF me on these issue, I better give up. I don't want to participate to a project like this any more. Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum
I sometimes think some people might join the Singpost, only because the Signpost editors name can be read high up on the page, where everybody can notice it. It is also my private opinion that they should stop doing that, entirely - or move it to the end of the edition, with very small letters - and not posted it at the beginning.
And lastly:
The Signpost edition pride themselves with the fact they are supporting women editors. But what they actually did, was chasing away the women editor they had.
Instead of using every possible means, saying sorry, we were wrong, we never knew you were a woman, you were wrongly accused of being sexist, we are desolated and we behaved like idiots, please come back or at least accept our apology...
Like they should act if they really cared for women editors.....instead they say :Nobody accused her of anything, she just think so. She is imagining things... It is all imagination. But here in fact a woman was accused by something she can't be and by not acknowledging this is they push away a legitimate concern of a woman editor, being falsely accused and never vindicated or taken seriously. By those who say they care about women (and who block Eric with a drop of a hat for any feminist remark). This is coming from people who write several pages of the importance of retaining women editors or engaging women editors. Hafspajen (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Justice suffered in great need[reply]
Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?
The poem ends with "Praise the right thing (decency, integrity)".
Hafspajen, this is more than 500 years old and will probably not change during out lifetime. You have been treated unfairly, I have been treated unfairly, I could name you 50 others easily who have been treated unfairly. If we wait for fairness we will wait long. The one thing I learned here is patience, but not that much patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafs, please reconsider, and continue to participate at WP. I've told you before, but I'll tell you again, that your contributions are invaluable and much appreciated by those who can recognize it, ie., your friends, and your presence and delightful comments, images, edits, and assistance are appreciated and enjoyed by many. Don't let one disrespectful editor, and a few clumsy friends, get you down. CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will think of it. But not now. I don't feel like sharing space and arguing with editors and admins who support an editor who is an indefinitely blocked editors sock, who with a range of various issues, while they start lashing out against me who never did any of these things. It gives me a rather weird feeling.
I don't like people who believe everything they hear either. WPPilot was constantly appealing to extenuating circumstances and was pleading for support and understanding instead of shifting the focus to his own behaviour, and tried to put the responsibility on others instead of learning from his mistakes and he was repeating them, the same ones, again and again. When he was pointed to them he responded with anger, he refused to address the problem and, instead, attacked the messenger - and voilá - some did even believed that too.
And, if anyone any more comes here on this page, telling me that I constantly attacked that user, DON'T COME HERE WITHOUT ANY DIFFS AND EVIDENCE, THANK YOU. And find out first what is the difference between attacks and raising a problem for discussion. I have very little interest in this project any more, it just feels like a rotten place right now. Hafspajen (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there were many moments of: "I am sorry, I will not do this again" involved, showing remorse and just starting everything all over again. Many "I am sorry, please forgive me" - and then continuing exactly were it was left off. Nothing ever changed, it was then I started to demand changes instead of "I am sorry" -es. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gareth Griffith-Jones, you are a real friend. I was now thinking enough. I think retiring for the right decision.
I was upset enough, for this and that - but the main issue is still there. The fact that I was the one attacked by WPPilot, and there was plenty of incivility from his part, none from my side. Nobody said a word. And, and here comes the poor judgment of some users: if this wasn't enough, he was throwing the blame on me.
For all the things he did, he made me look like I was the one commiting all those things. This is a dangerous and nefarious game, that was played, and I do not wish to be part of this any more. Some people understood this from the begining, but said nothing. Wrong, - as Montanabw once said, there is a time to speak and not to be silent. Some understood later, well, it's better late than never. Some didn't understood, and still don't, too bad. Pity that people believe words instead of facts, but I guess - it's their choice. Hafspajen (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was travelling and had poor and sporadic internet access when whatever it was happened, so knew nothing about it. What I do know is that WPP is banished, which is vindication for you, and it would be a shame if the project were to lose as knowledgeable contributor as you. Best, Awien (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafs, call yourself semi-retired, imo. I wiki-retired a few years ago over similar stuff, but I still come back occasionally to garden in the quiet corners. I hope you do the same. Zeng8r (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't chatted with you for awhile, and was unaware of the difficulties you've been experiencing. Read through several of them this morning, and am very glad to see you hanging in there. You are one of the more knowledgeable editors I've met on this site. Keep it up. Onel5969 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, don't know the article history intimately. You could speak with the reviewer in the nom, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)
Hi Haffy- I came across this bank or promissory note with a bunch of early paper notes from Sweden. There was some comment about it being for commodities, but not necessarily reliable. This is not in any of the general reference books and I wondered if you might be able to translate what it says (Google translator is often useless), and/or if you had any other thoughts on it. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafs, please reconsider, and continue to participate at WP. I've told you before, but I'll tell you again, that your contributions are invaluable and much appreciated by those who can recognize it, ie., your friends, and your presence and delightful comments, images, edits, and assistance are appreciated and enjoyed by many. Don't let one disrespectful editor, and a few clumsy friends, get you down. CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will think of it. But not now. I don't feel like sharing space and arguing with editors and admins who support an editor who is an indefinitely blocked editors sock, who with a range of various issues, while they start lashing out against me who never did any of these things. It gives me a rather weird feeling.
I don't like people who believe everything they hear either. WPPilot was constantly appealing to extenuating circumstances and was pleading for support and understanding instead of shifting the focus to his own behaviour, and tried to put the responsibility on others instead of learning from his mistakes and he was repeating them, the same ones, again and again. When he was pointed to them he responded with anger, he refused to address the problem and, instead, attacked the messenger - and voilá - some did even believed that too.
And, if anyone any more comes here on this page, telling me that I constantly attacked that user, DON'T COME HERE WITHOUT ANY DIFFS AND EVIDENCE, THANK YOU. And find out first what is the difference between attacks and raising a problem for discussion. I have very little interest in this project any more, it just feels like a rotten place right now. Hafspajen (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there were many moments of: "I am sorry, I will not do this again" involved, showing remorse and just starting everything all over again. Many "I am sorry, please forgive me" - and then continuing exactly were it was left off. Nothing ever changed, it was then I started to demand changes instead of "I am sorry" -es. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gareth Griffith-Jones, you are a real friend. I was now thinking enough. I think retiring for the right decision.
I was upset enough, for this and that - but the main issue is still there. The fact that I was the one attacked by WPPilot, and there was plenty of incivility from his part, none from my side. Nobody said a word. And, and here comes the poor judgment of some users: if this wasn't enough, he was throwing the blame on me.
For all the things he did, he made me look like I was the one commiting all those things. This is a dangerous and nefarious game, that was played, and I do not wish to be part of this any more. Some people understood this from the begining, but said nothing. Wrong, - as Montanabw once said, there is a time to speak and not to be silent. Some understood later, well, it's better late than never. Some didn't understood, and still don't, too bad. Pity that people believe words instead of facts, but I guess - it's their choice. Hafspajen (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was travelling and had poor and sporadic internet access when whatever it was happened, so knew nothing about it. What I do know is that WPP is banished, which is vindication for you, and it would be a shame if the project were to lose as knowledgeable contributor as you. Best, Awien (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafs, call yourself semi-retired, imo. I wiki-retired a few years ago over similar stuff, but I still come back occasionally to garden in the quiet corners. I hope you do the same. Zeng8r (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks they discovered it too. And of course copy-pasted material is not allowed... and is not in accord with Wikipedia copyright conventions and of course one has to use a properly paraphrased edit. That is what I always say, too. Hafspajen (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you edited at the section without making any attempt to copy-edit the machine language translation, so it was a natural assumption to make. I'm sorry to have bothered you with it. It was just that the images on that particular website landed up on my desk (I mean off-wiki). When I looked at the site more carefully I realized my mistake. c1cada (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, one of the contributing editors to Featured Content has unfortunately had to cease contributing. The draft article is in a bit of a state, and I wondered if you would like to edit it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad luck. Well, I can try.... but no need to put up my name, I do this just to help you. I hadn't really noticed as I haven't been editing very much lately. ..Hafspajen (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific reason why this needs to be set to a fixed width? Per WP:IMGSIZE: Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. Nymf (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image is usually bigger, generally it is 300px.
However as per IMAGESIZE; ="Lead images should usually be no wider than upright=1.35 (which is the default equivalent of 300px)." lead image is generally set as 300px.
Now, the problem is that upright=1.35, should be same as 300px, but is NOT the 300px. Just tried it, it's much bigger. Hafspajen (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By setting a fixed width, you are overriding the image size for everyone to what you think it should be. Under Preferences -> Files -> Thumbnail size, I have mine set to 220px based on my browser size. When you leave it empty, that is the size that is used. The scaling is also based on this personal preference setting. If you prefer 300px wide infobox images, just change it in your own personal preference settings.
...No, I am not ignoring it, just tried to fix it. I am affraid I don't understan your sentence above, unfortunately, you are not a native speaker, I guess. But it looks like infobox image doesn't work on upright="1.3", it will only adapt on 300px. Why is this bothering you? I know that Norwegian Wiki for example doesn't use px or upright, but we are using it on the English. Really many of the articles are using it. Hafspajen (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I care because you are forcing your own personal preference on me when it doesn't need to and shouldn't be. upright=1.3 is working just like it should be; by scaling it over 1 you would be going over the size of the original image (distorting it), so it's obviously not letting you go with a wider image than 508px. Also see Template:Infobox person#Parameters where it says image_size: This parameter should not normally need to be set.. Nymf (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way am I forcing you? Did you changed your preferences? What kind of preferences do you have at Preferences, Image size? Standard? Hafspajen (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained that to you? By setting a fixed width (which is discouraged; the parameter should normally not be used at all per guidelines), you are forcing that size on everyone. By leaving it empty, which is suggested and encouraged per guidelines, a user can set it to what they prefer themselves. Nymf (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I removed the 300px, because I don't have time to argue here with you about it, but I am pretty sure that MANY article ARE using pixels. It is a pretty standard layout. It is allowed to use larger and wider images, and most lead images are larger than thr rest.
I have absolutely no idea what this is about, but it reminded me of one of my DYKs, from 2013. Did you know ...... that a large sculpture by Caroline Shawk Brooks was listed by customs officials not as a work of art, but as "110 lbs. of butter"? MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax You should watch the film, Butter. It's not great, but was fun to watch. trailer.
Very interesting, Bgwhite... though it is a bit unsharp and then there is the frame... FPC have some idea about that frames in 3d are not allowed. But how about your Rubens, Venus and Mars? if we can get an article together on it, it will have EV, it can work, and Mandarax kan DYK it. Or you. Or me. You had that new beginner's luck onFP, it might work now too... :) Hafspajen (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but it was a good faith edit, and he was only notified that you reinserted it. Not fair that the next warning will be escalating, or do you thing so? Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: Although legend persists that the Hays Office fined Selznick $5,000 for using the word "damn" in Butler's exit line, in fact the Motion Picture Association board passed an amendment to the Production Code on November 1, 1939, that forbade use of the words "hell" or "damn" except when their use "shall be essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore ... or a quotation from a literary work, provided that no such use shall be permitted which is intrinsically objectionable or offends good taste." With that amendment, the Production Code Administration had no further objection to Rhett's closing line.[1]— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Leff, Leonard J.; Simmons, Jerold L. (2001). The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code. University Press of Kentucky. p. 108.
I was going to the worst article in the world and I didn't even know it yet. Weeks away and hundreds of words on a page that snaked through the encyclopedia like a main circuit cable plugged straight into Featured Content. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but I think probably not. I kinda wonder how Pasternak's attitude works out in real life, in a place where there are guns. Maybe he just keeps his mouth zipped. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in the next edition of the Military History Wikiproject's monthly newsletter The BugleIan Rose and I are hoping to run a group interview with some of the editors who have worked on military history-themed FPs, and I'd like to invite you to participate. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could post responses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview by 14 August. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Kiss (Munch), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edvard Munch's 1897 painting The Kiss features lovers who are "virtually impossible" to separate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Kiss (Munch). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alm is the meadow + stables in the mountains, where the animals are in the summer, Wirtschaft what the farmers do, make cheese for example, - Wirtschaft also means restaurant, Alpenwirtschaft could be any in the alps, "Alpwirtschift" is no German word. - Congrats to the promotion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 February 2015 at 19:11, you created the section ==Lost Works==
In the first paragraph your edit was left unfinished.
The painting Raising of the Cross was an altarpiece by Pieter Paul Rubens, painted for the Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome. It was imported to England 1811; where it was auctioned 1812, 1820; and was lost at sea after last date after 1820.
I have next to no expertise, not only in the field of this period's art, but in pre-modern art at all, so I'm not well qualified to fix it.
Bgwhite, you are punished because of your talk page watchers unkind behavior. As a punishment YOU MUST WRITE UP at least three entries in this, chose between this or of course this or this, or this or this or thisy. (Not much to chose..) .... After you did your homework that you stand in a corner for 15 minutes. Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My wife is an elementary teacher. She makes me sit in the corner and have time outs all the time, especially when I make "bad choices." So, I don't have time to stand in your corner because I'm already standing in a corner. Bgwhite (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means someone in the Big Apple thinks you have overfed some divas. Divas are like bears -- you shouldn't feed them. Also they are like geese -- it's a shameful crime to stick nozzles down their bills and stuff them just so you can enjoy your little pâté, you lousy francophile. Also, divas are best slim, svelte, and sexy. Any other way is just, like, gross, dude. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I was thinking maybe divas liked to be small and attractive, so they are on a diet. Not all divas are equally svelte! . (This one clearly takes the cake.)
Second thought. Gareth is not a diva: diva is a celebrated female singer; a woman of outstanding talent in the world of opera, and by extension in theatre, cinema and popular music. The meaning of diva is closely related to that of prima donna. He doesn't sing at all.Hafspajen (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear dog people: Could you folks deal with Weisenstar? He is a newbie creating disruption via adding dog images to articles that probably already have too many images; using captions with zero capitalization; and uploading and adding images that he claims as his own when they are obviously not (one of them was this: [36]; possibly or probably some of his other uploads are not his own work as well). His article text writing is on the level of a three-year-old; English is not his native language but even considering that he doesn't seem to be trying to make sense. He is also edit-warring and removing correct text. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender When I think of an old dog, I too think of Hafs. I'd say something about my wife and dogs, but as I'm older than her and she has an extremely hard fist, I won't. Don't marry a boxer (human or the dog breed).
I've also left a warning about their writing. I don't think English is their native language. There are also writing a Filipino article.
They are copying images from other sources. I've checked three and I've found all three elsewhere. I'm not sure what to do with such a large amount of images. Content Commons? Bgwhite (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the copyvio images they are claiming as their own with odd misspelled attributions: Someone can just go to his Commons upload page and tag as copyvio or nom for deletion every image that is a copyvio. I already Speedied the cats watching TV and nommed this one [37]. If you know the others are copyvios then please report/nominate them as well. Maybe Hafs being a Commons person knows a fast way of nominating them for deletion or reporting copyvios. Or can report him on a board there for blocking or whatever is appropriate. Anyway, thanks everyone for any help! Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, G. Considering they are edit-warring and passing off others' photos as their own, I don't know that they are going to be that easily deterred. I hope someone can take care of the Commons issue and get the other photos deleted if in fact they are not his own photos. Meanwhile, keep an eye on his editing. Thanks all! Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's still doing stupid $#it. I've reverted his latest round of disruptive dog-article edits, and someone has speedied the strange new article he created. Will all of you please keep an eye on his contributions? .... He may have to go to ANI for CIR and disruption if this continues. (Seems to also have created a sock on Commons.) Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a fair amount of vandalism and disruptions both to dog articles and FPs. What you see it is only the top of the iceberg. Hafspajen (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in point of fact, that word was in the caption before he substituted his own image. I think it's OK to point out that it's the face or head of the dog, and that's why it's in the article. Could add that it shows the dog's specific markings as described in the Color And Markings section. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Talking about colour and markings, how about this? Mellow yellow. It was rumoured that the song was about smoking dried banana skins, which was believed to be a hallucinogenic drug in the 1960s. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —10:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that about the song. I think "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" has a more convincing genesis tale, denied tho it was by the Fab Four. I think Donovan is OK in small doses, but I never bought one of his albums. Then again, he wrote the songs for Brother Sun, Sister Moon, which are lovely. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, never knew the songs weren't released on an album until this century! I sing "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" to myself a lot (although I change the words). That film had such a weird history: acted and filmed in English, then dubbed into Italian and first released in Italy with the Italian title. Stupid Italian directors. :-( Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the editor (Weisenstar) is definitely provably here only for longterm trolling at this point. Today he uploaded a recent image of what is clearly a Bull Mastiff, but labeled it as File:Alpine mastiff body.jpg, an extinct breed, and proceeded to replace the infobox image of the extinct breed with this recent image of a Bull Mastiff. When that was reverted he continued his merry pranks on other article(s). Clearly this editor's longterm behavior, despite numerous requests, advice, and warnings, is proof that he is trolling, and he is what Floquenbeam would call a timesink. Well, Floq and Drmies, should he be blocked as a trolling timesink, or shall we go through the tedious ritual of an ANI? Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Bgwhite (who may already have this page on his watch list), since he warned the user as well, a week ago. By the way, I found another blatant copyvio just now -- an obviously studio photograph he claims to have taken at his sister's: File:Border face 3.jpg. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an image that is on Instagram: File:Border collie face.jpg (uploaded one month ago to Commons, claiming it to be his own dog). It is on Instagram [39][40], (uploaded there one month ago). I don't think it's Weisenstar's Instagram account; he is Filipino, and that's a Spanish-language account that mentions Mexico/Mexicano twice. The Instagram account also does not show all of the many many countries that Weisenstar claims to have visited and taken dog photos from, and doesn't show any dogs except Border Collies. The account does however have several photos of that person in the bluejeans and black T-shirt, and it appears to be the Instagram account user himself (and unlike the Border Collie there named Luna, he does not claim this tri-color Border Collie to be his). It appears to me that Weisenstar by and large is nabbing photos off of Instagram accounts (which photos don't usually show up on Google Images to my knowledge unless the user has upload accounts like those). I'm not reporting this to Commons right now because it could possibly (but is unlikely to) be an outing (by the way, if admins judge this post to be an outing, please remove/redact/whatever). Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Oddly, here is a wider, and much longer, version of that image: [41]. It is no longer on the page it came from in that form, but here it is in the cached version from June 15: [42]. Softlavender (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the contributions of the socks and Weisenstar, I would have to concur Hafs. I do think they are the same. This will take checkuser powers to confirm, which Materialscientist has. I've also filled a sock report. I don't think there is a need of a block at this point because they haven't really edited the past couple of days. Going the checkuser route is probably best right now. On a side note, I agreed with Hafs? Ohhhh, I don't feel so good right now. Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest update: I nominated the Border Collie image for deletion, and I trawled through all of the remaining uploads and found 3 more provable copyvios, and nominated them too. (He has responded by repeatedly nominating one of my own uploads for deletion, and by leaving me threatening messages on Commons.) This is not a good track record -- it appears that nearly half of his uploads have been provably copyvios, and who knows how many of the others are as well (just because an image doesn't come up elsewhere on a Google search doesn't mean he took the photo -- I found at least one that is all over Pinterest, but impossible for me to tell when it was uploaded there). Anyway, he needs a site ban across all wiki projects, including all Wikipedias, Commons, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, etc. (see those links for his contributions to those extra projects). Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bgwhite, for blocking Weisenstar and his recent sockpuppet Ed killer gein. Weisenstar needs to also be blocked on Commons as well -- he is continuing his BS unabated: [43], [44], including creating more "uploads" of the extinct breed (File:Alpine mastiff puppy.jpg, now renamed per my move report), accusing DragonflySixtyseven of being my sockpuppet, threatening to kill me (via the sock account), and re-re-re-nominating one of my uploads for deletion (via the sock account). Can someone contact an admin on Commons and have him blocked there? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What? Nice work? Something fishy is going on. Need to call the cats.
This page uses an array of templates which makes it difficult for me to identify the location and correct a simple spelling issue. Quote: "Sixteen Featured picturess were promoted this week." Shouldn't featured pictures have just one S? Particularly good issue this week. Nice work. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's another attempt made to keep the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. I know you are probably as tired of this debate as I am, hopefully we can end it once and for all now. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the admins that previously accepted this re-nomination should be notified, because a was a consensus that this should be now final. And that any further renomination will be disruptive. Mythic Writerlord, I would simply nominate that page for deletion, as disruptive. Hafspajen (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember who they are, perhaps you could do so? You are a more seasoned editor then I am. Your voice in the matter, especially on the deletion page, would be of help I believe. I think there's a lot of problems with this whole process, and it's amazing it has continued as long as it has, considering the fact the nomination that started all this (the one that resulted in a merge result), happened in January 2014. Thank you for your time, as always. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was Coffee and Drmies. I would like to know what they think about this re-nomination, I think that it is only diruptive, and I think it is not the third either but like fifth, considering all the side-work and additional tries. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to prod you, but actually only 4 in the last year :-p I hope you understand while we may disagree on this issue, I respect your contributions on Wikipedia. I totally respect your joint defense of the Celibacy pagespace. Writerlord has been in this longer than any editor except DGG. BusterD (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD, I was stating before that I am NOT against merging IN AN OTHER article. I said that all the time. What is confusing that the people starting this process all over again, (and I believe is that sockpupets are involved), that it is aiming for using the word Incel. can't say I like socking, is kinda dishonest. But apart from that, the word and concept is a neologism standing on wobbling feet, and it can't be merged in celibacy if were not going to ... change the world, in that meaning that the article creators are exactly going for, to popularize the new concept. We must be careful with this. I was proposing a very carefully formulated fusion time to time into sexual frustration witch is an article that has two lines, but .... they are not interested. It boils down to uncertain sources and a certain wish to have an article on the very concept, but as it is now it is not very different from as it was before. Hafspajen (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD and Hafspajen, I think this case has dragged on for far too long. The outcome of the second AfD for this article was probably the most reasonable so far; a merge seems like a compromise we could all get behind. What was wrong, was the target of the merge; the celibacy article. If we could find a proper target for the material to be merged into, under a more suitable name (involuntary abstinence has been suggested and well-received by editors), I would support it. Until such a concensus is reached and a good target found and endorsed by enough editors, I am against the recreation of 'incel' as a standalone article. That is my personal take on the matter. I have nothing but respect for both my opponent and those who are on "my side" in the argument, but I want to reach a reasonable compromise of sorts and end this. The endless pushing of the involuntary celibacy article, however, is not doing the case for restoring it any favors. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your sharing this, but my question remains: did I miss something in my listing of discussions? Writerlord been with this subject longer than anyone, and while I acknowledge the frustration, that editor is the most likely wikipedian to know if my list is complete. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD as far as I can tell, your listing is thorough and correct. Thank you for making things a little more clear in this rather messy process. Your list proves that positions, over the past year and a half and the course of many discussions, have not changed an awful lot - editors are still strongly devided, with a small majority leaning towards exclusion and a strong minority for inclusion, and a small minority in favor of a merge. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK; people does anyone knows how to get rid of a hacker? No, I am not imagining things. Programs are getting installed without I ever installed them, Windows is installing strange features and changes, all by itself, things move around, tabs are closed without me doing that. Hope i will be able to finish this message without anyone closing the tab. --Hafspajen (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS, tabbs messing around again. It started like a couple of month ago, around April and I kinda left. When I again resumed my regular Wiki activities, and here we go again, it started rather massively again. It's not normal that the control panel is opening all by itself, that several tabs are opening and closing all by itself, time to time, clicking and clicking... and things that are moving around when you don't touch them. Pages started to open and close all by themselfes on my computer, and I never touched it at all, all by themselfes. No, things are not moving around all by themselfes, that's not a virus. A virus is not editwaring with you all day on what picture you should have on your background screen, changing it and putting different ones in. Things dong go crazy like that all alone. And later everything dissapeared and it turned pure BLACK all the time. Of course is hacking. It's just silly, because I don't have enemies in real life and there is nothing anyone would want to know about me or do things like this to me (in real life). I presume it is aiming towards to make me stop editing Wiki, or making editing unpleasant. I guess. Any ideas are interesting, how to make it stop, - except more hacking. Guys, hacking is illegal, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Or an advanced poltergeist. Marty, I don't belive you. You are not the kind of guy, if you wanted to know anything, you would probably simply asked. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I did some additional cleaning on the image - removed some scratches, tears, - and most surprisingly - some stamps and notes at the bottom edge, etc, etc, and uploaded over. Obviously, if the image changes, I need to notify all voters of this fact. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'm so put off by global warming & climate change that I tend to romanticize winter, I guess. (I grew up in a cold climate, but where I live now we barely had winter at all last year.) Anyhow, thought it was a cool photo. Sca (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
.jpg)
_Falter_Pilz_Schlange.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(1).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(bird)_in_Mo_(by).jpg)
.jpg)
_Shen_Nanpi_Pair_of_Phoenixes_in_the_Morning_Glow_A_Hanging_scroll_Color_on_sil_a_dynasty.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Sca (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnOZW6RIUAAWZJ6.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bull_terrier_face.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://mla-d2-p.mlstatic.com/4591-MLA3684400576_012013-Y.jpg){kind=link}
