User talk:Reisio/Archive2

Fixing(?) silly colors in template:Satanism

I mean the following change: [1]

It is great you cleaned the markup but what is it about the colors? They seemed alright to me (more fitting to the theme at least). Could you elaborate? --Vitalyb

Uhhh, what can I say - do you see the marijuana article covered with green? The hell article covered in red? All the tables of contents look the same - it's about consistency. ¦ Reisio 02:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the Heavy metal template has red titles and it looks good. In fact, many templates have different colors do you see something especially wrong with this template being black besides? --Vitalyb 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care for that one, either, but only the headings have been altered, and red isn't a color that automatically makes me think "heavy metal". Making a box dark gray with BLACK headings on the Satanism article, however, smacks of embellishment and is moreover a stark contrast to the default monobook skin, decreasing readability - imho. ¦ Reisio 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadHunters / Bill Summers

Hi, the reason I removed the Bill Summers link is because the link was pointing to a baseball player, rather than the percussionist. So I've reverted your edit again, I'm afraid. Best wishes, Ben --Bwmodular 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unix and boggles

Surely that isn't the most boggling thing you've seen this week on WP 8-) - Georgewilliamherbert 09:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow there's always something new to make me boggle. :p ¦ Reisio 09:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What self-censorship?

In the summary of a recent change [2] to Talk:Linux, you said “restore (hopefully accidentally) deleted edt by Haikupoet (and self-censorship by Daniel Brockman, for good measure)”. I don’t understand how or by whom that content was deleted, and I don’t understand what you mean by “self-censorship by Daniel Brockman”, so could you provide links to the relevant changes? Thanks. — Daniel Brockman 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, sorry, I see now. (blushes) [3] I take full responsibility, I apologize for my carelessness, and I thank you for your restoration. What I don’t understand, however, is why Wikipedia didn’t warn me about the edit conflict. (I had opened two edit windows, submitted one, forgot about it, found the other window, wrote another reply and then proceeded to submit that one, accidentally reverting the three most recently made changes.) Thanks again. — Daniel Brockman 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were in the same section, then I'm not sure. PHP-based software isn't exactly advanced. :p ¦ Reisio 10:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were actually in different sections, so merging the two editions would have been trivial. Weird. I guess you’re right: the software is simply stupid when it comes to this. — Daniel Brockman 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I ask you to stop reverting the pages

and vandalizing page

Image:Flag of Italy 2.svg

You failed to provide a reason for your edits and broke the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --Panairjdde 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand WP:3RR...among other things. ¦ Reisio 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I am "a royal PITA", correcting my "goofiness", asserting that I do not understand "...other things", is your way to settle the matter? I am sure I'll understand a "yes" or a "no".--Panairjdde 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the only way to settle this matter is if

You stop going against everyone else, or
You're banned eternally, or
The relevant pages and images are protected eternally, or
A lot of people decide they care more about not putting up with you than they do about an accurate flag image
...something else along the lines of 1-4

My guess is that as soon as User:Fredericks, or User:Dbenbenn (an admin), or User:Zscout370 (an admin) get online (or anyone else with some common sense notices), your goofiness will shortly be dealt with...again. ¦ Reisio 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panairjdde green-white-red flag.svg: ma 'na forchettata di cazzi tua?--Panairjdde 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this all about? Georgewilliamherbert 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Please, I ask you to look at and contribute to the talk on this one. Explain your arguments there and read those of others (or at least acknowledge and rebuttle them) Reverting without making contributions - especially where talk has been going on for a while - isn't very helpful. I do beleive that calling them a state is baisically inaccurate, for the reasons discussed further down the article Robdurbar 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a message on the talk page for SAD. :-) Angrynight 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors and Forks

I see that you have recently added Creekin.net to the list at WP:MF. I just want to let you know that, next time you do it, please make sure you wrap the URL with <nowiki></nowiki> so they do not get cached by search engines. We found that once they fall into Supplemental results of Google, it's nearly impossible to pull them off regardless of whether that site still improved or not. You might want to see how it improved.

By the way, if you are intereted in helping us mail ISPs with DMCA for non-compliant mirrors, let us know at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks or my talk page. Thank you. -- WB 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country Infoboxes

The problem is, that every country BUT Switzerland's flag looks weird. Switzerland is a very small sacrifice to make for all the other countries, and in fact the change makes Switzerland look not half as weird as all other countries do now. Check the talkpage on the infoxbox template, some others were discussing it as well. Uris 02:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an easier fix, just changing the size of the two images. Switzerland will always be the oddball because its flag is not of the traditional rectangular shape, but even it looks okay wit the fix. It can't be set up so that Switzerland looks perfect, or all the countries with rectangular flags will look bad (and they are 99% of the countries). Uris 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be setup, I'm on it. ¦ Reisio 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pics on Bristol Zoo

Hi,

You reverted some of the pictures I'd deleted (my uploads) on Bristol Zoo.

I was advised by User:Arpingstone, who know a lot more about photography than me that they were too distant/dark etc so I deleted them see his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone#Bristol_zoo_pics_.26_chew_valley Rod 08:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Default filesystem on Gentoo Linux

Hi, I see you've reverted my change - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Linux_distributions&diff=40808873&oldid=40773256 . I'd like to point out that I'm the member of Gentoo Documentation Project :). This really isn't a big issue, but we *do* use ext3 as the default filesystem while certainly leaving the choice to end users. If you have any questions/feedback, try our gentoo-doc mailing list or just me. You should be able to guees my email from my username :) jkt

Flag of Switzerland

What was wrong with this flag Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg ver. 01:08, 23 March 2006? ---xfi- 09:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing - I should've double-checked the PDF. ¦ Reisio 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was afraid there is some bug or so. ---xfi- 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

Hi. Can you please explain this reversion in more detail at talk:Linux?

To me that note is very distracting and not very helpful. People looking for GNU only will not type GNU/Linux, and the relationship between GNU and Linux is explained at the correct place in the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK putting "X is redirected here" blurbs atop articles when 'X' is a very common name for the subject of the article is standard practice. Saying where the GNU article is serves as an explanation so people don't have to say "Okay...and wtf is GNU?" should they be that completely ignorant. Also, I'm pretty sure the "GNU/Linux" proponents would eat you alive and yet another war on this matter would be spawned. ¦ Reisio 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are one step from breaking Three-revert rule, please stop the revert war. As I explained in Linux page people that want to look for GNU they don't type "Linux" or even "GNU/Linux" in the search field they type directly "GNU", that dab link was there only to promote a POV and that against the NPOV principle of Wikipedia -- AdrianTM 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of 3RR. :p As for 'that dab' being POV, that's your POV. :p ¦ Reisio 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards ordering causes waste

To quote User:OrphanBot:

2. OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.

3. OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

This is backwards in multiple ways. It should (1) notify, (2) wait until the 7 days or whatever are up and the image has been deleted, then (3) remove the image from articles.

It's a waste of many people's time and resources to remove them from articles before it's certain the image is gone. Also at the moment I can't see a significant drawback to implementing the process I've described.

¦ Reisio 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not how OrphanBot does things -- the numbers are just what the bot does, not the order it does them in. OrphanBot gives notice as soon as it tags the image, or as soon as it comes across it after someone else tags it. The image is removed from the article before deletion as a "last warning" to anyone watching the article, and so it doesn't become a redlink when it is deleted. And it's hardly a major waste of time: somewhere between 97% and 99% of all "no source" and "no license" images are deleted.

There's also one major drawback for removing images after they've been deleted: "What links here" is unreliable for deleted images. --Carnildo 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting removal after deletion, but not removing (tags) several days prior to the end of the period given to properly source an image. ¦ Reisio 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Italy

Why are you changing the colours of the Italian flag?--Semioli 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with commons.wikimedia.org - you're wasting so many people's time. ¦ Reisio 12:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean. Commons is Commons, what image to use here is a matter of English Wikipedia. Commons can not dictate what images to use here. (you can answer here, I'm watching this page)--Semioli 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a media repository for all the localized Wikipedias. The image you're switching things to, Image:True Flag of Italy.svg, is really at Commons:True Flag of Italy.svg. There's already a file and flag Commons:Flag of Italy.svg however, which is what should be used. To use something else decentralizes things and makes A LOT more work for A LOT of people and DOES NOT help things. If you have a problem with the colors used in Commons:Flag of Italy.svg, take it up with Commons:Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg - do not switch out files. ¦ Reisio 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all wrong. The fact that the image is called Flag of Italy on Commons does not mean that it is the true flag of Italian Republic, but only that on Commons people agreed to call that version with that name. I am free to use whatever file of Commons I feel like, and if you have problems you can discuss them here.--Semioli 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Reisio, I know that this situation has pretty much drained me to, but I think we lost this one. This is the fourth flag image war I was involved with and god, these things suck. For right now, I think we should use FFFFFF for the white, leave the Pantone version at it's new name and just play around with that. Given now that this should cool down; I will be able to see if I can bug my Italian contacts again. I could also see what happens when I write the Government later on, but I think I could use your help. Contact me off Wiki, by email, so we can finially figure out what should happen, or at least figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm past actively bothering with the exact hue of white, but whatshisname can't go around replacing stuff with goofy alternative filenames like 'True Flag of Italy', it's too wasteful. ¦ Reisio 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal
The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out.
Home Page Reorganization
The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list.
Article Classification Move
The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project.
New Talk Page Template
The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.

Balance
As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations!
What You Can Do to Help
The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope.
Signed by
Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Linux

This is a message for Resio and AdrianTM. I think you should stop reverting talk:linux. That's becoming silly a bit, a revert war on the talk page. Resio, if you want to be the last man standing, that's fine. I think we should all drop that and move on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly, too, but since I don't care to have my legitimate posts removed, and AdrianTM clearly doesn't respond to English, I'll just go ahead and play it out. :p

As for you, it seemed you'd dropped it and moved on (relatively :p) long ago already (yet here you are). ¦ Reisio 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Western Sahara

Thanks for the translation! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

np Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic#Coat_of_Arms_text.3F ¦ Reisio 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam

Dear Reisio I see you reverted the translation I changed of the legend of the Amsterdam coat of arms; I do not fully understand why, because the translation that was there, is not the official version that is used by the Amsterdam Municipality; I have asked it over there (cf. this webpage. Cordially Jona

My revert had more to do with the manner of your alteration than the translation you provided. If you look carefully, you will see that the existing format was Motto in Nederlands (Motto in English) — you changed this to Slightly altered motto in English (Motto in English). If you'd merely changed Merciful to Compassionate, I would have left it alone. Sorry for the slow response. ¦ Reisio 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Take Five piano intro.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Take Five piano intro.png, 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. — Wereon 13:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Polynesia-triangle.png

Excellent and useful map for this article. One of the best images and most appropriate for context on all of Wikipedia and, heck, much of the web, too. It seems that cyberspace is the perfect medium for maps to show exactly the geographical region being discussed, tailored to a specific audience, but they're seldom done well or with any consideration of the end user. Thanks for taking the time to make and post something useful, and thanks for simply putting it in the public domain for others. KP Botany 19:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GMT and GIMP make it easy; and yeah, public domain rules. :p ¦ Reisio 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

I would like to kindly invite you to discuss any changes you make. As I have mentioned to you in the comments box I have started a whole discussion about the control claim of Polisario on the so-called "free zone" [4]. And here it is again for you, so please kindly discuss and don't revert. Thanks - wikima 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+++

About the Polisario called "Free Zone ", again

This is an answer to reisio's revert on Western Sahara that is thought to remain as discussion as this place as the artcile on the "free zone" does not seem to make clear separation between facts and propaganda.

This region is an arid and unpopulated area. All relevant urban and populated areas are under Moroccan control

Polisario and "SADR" are based in algeria and only go there for symbolic demonstrations and events, which happens 2-3 times a year. This is not control.

And when they do, they are severely condemned by the United Nations because concentration of troupes there is not allowed. You can't control nor administer an area if you are not allowed to concentrate troupes in it.

Moroccan military is also present in that area and Morocco has been condemned for that. If you think that being military present there is control, then Morocco controls the area.

All the population that is controlled by Polisario is in Tindouf, not in that area. So how can you control an area in which none lives, where you can't use your military and where all your relevant responsibles do not live?

Unless you source it the so called "free zone" is not recognised as such by the institutions dealing with the conflict namely the UN.

There is an official buffer zone in that area along the berm. I don't have exact information but it should be a few kms wide. Morocco however considers this whole region as buffer zone and probably has built the wall not directly on the Algerian border to be able to fight the Polisario guerrillas in case of hostilities without being obliged to pursuit them on the algerian territory.

Furthermore, the information as you are pushing in Wikipedia suggests that Morocco and polisario sort of share the control of Western Sahara. This is completely and awfully wrong.

Morocco is officially seen as the administrative power of Western Sahara by the UNirted Nations [5][6].

The area before the berm which it controls include all relevant regions, urban areas, including the capital and the largest cities, the cost and the sahrawis who have chosen to live there.

Morocco governs that area using all means of sovereignty (flag, money, calling code, stamps, police, military, etc.).

To change this one needs to justify that the "free zone" exists officially and is recognised by the UN, and that the “SADR” is recognised as its administrative power. This might be a challenge for the moment as the UN nor over 160 countries of the world do recognise the existence of the “SADR”.

Until then the information remains that polisario merely claims control of a strip that it calls "free zone" for propaganda reasons.

Rgds - wikima 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+++

Who is a "brick wall" ?!?

I would suggest you have a little think of what you are doing:

You are rejecting a discussion and just reverting without delivering any argument or additional information
And you do by attacking personally someone who is inviting you to discuss, treating him of "brick wall".

wikima 18:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum: This is related to Western Sahara - wikima 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but I've discussed with you before and saw nothing to make me think anything came of it. ¦ Reisio 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page of the "Free Zone" and I can't remember having discussed this topic with you!? -- wikima 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic#Proposal_for_a_Corrected_Version_of_the_Article ¦ Reisio 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up things. This is a discussion about the so caled "sadr" -- wikima 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making things up; I said "I've discussed with you before", not "I've discussed the Free Zone with you before". ¦ Reisio 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is clarified now, So, you think this allows to block any dialog and to step into an edit/revert war?? -- wikima 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think incorrect statements shouldn't be added to articles, period. ¦ Reisio 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is rather generic and vague. Of course incorrect statements should not be added, but who defines whether a statement is correct or not? You, because you say it? Well I am afraid not. And why do you think we do have talk pages next to every single article? To keep edit/revert-warring and reject discussion with co-editors who invite you to do so? -- wikima 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah, sorry but I don't think I'll be conversing with you on my talk page anymore. ¦ Reisio 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claim vs. Administration of Western Sahara

Hi Reisio, You have been reverting on Western Sahara others edits without discussing nor responding to others arguments on the talk page. Edit-warring is completely unnecessary and things can be best sorted by a friendly and openly way on the talk page. I did not revert your version as I expect you to be cooperative and discuss and refute what is written on the talk page (and some of it is pasted here for you convenience).

(This is pasted from the talk page of Western Sahara).

The Polisario front/SADR claims the whole of the disputed territory of WS. This is a fact.

When it comes to Administration, The UN considers Morocco as the Administrative Power [[7]] of all Western Sahara.
The terminology free zone by the Polisario came into use after the cease-fire accord, describing the region that was left outside the moroccan berm for purely military reasons.
The administration means many forms of sovereignty in addition to functionning state/organisational bodies and institutions on the supposed free zone. There is nothing of that.
There are some symbolic celebrations held in Tifariti or Bir Lehlu for a few days, but there is no official of the polisario living in the so-called free zone. There are no population centres/towns as all the population is in Tindouf camps.
There are places not within the Moroccan berm, so to say, and can thus be claimed by the Polisario as free zone, yet the Polisario can't have any presence on them. These include:

The strip along the Algerian border.
The area east of the Moroccan wall (around 5-10 Kms wide) by a 2400 Kms length.
The strip to the south along the border with Mauritania (more than 300 kms long by 15 kms wide)
75 kms of coast on the Atlantic including the town of Laguera.

So it very clear that the use of the word free-zone is purely Polisario and independence supporters' coinage. The definition of administration does not apply to the Polisario presence on it, and there are large areas of it that are not and can not be said that Polisario has any presence on them let alone "administer them". In conclusion, it can't be said that SADR/Polisario administers the so-called free zone.--A Jalil 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country or territory

Hi Reisio,

(rm newline)

Per my most recent edit:

(partial rv; removing newline causes code to be displayed on template page, no apparent effect on country/territory articles (suggest problem elsewhere...?))

If there's something I'm missing, please let me know! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently missing the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not the template works on its own page. ¦ Reisio 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that it might matter, as (1) if the template malfunctions on its own page, I'd guess it was more rather than less likely to malfunction elsewhere; but more so (2) I'd say it'd be fair for folk to expect it to function properly on its own page so they'd be able to see the effects of amendments made to parameters etc.

Was it the appearance of an extra line above the template somewhere that prompted you to remove the newline...? Regards, David (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it includes a newline and every article using the template has a newline in it that cannot be easily removed from the articles themselves. I s'pose it'll fix itself when someone removes the esoteric parts and that template ceases to interfere. ¦ Reisio 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a wiki/HTML/CSS/etc syntax that positions something at the top of a page when its code appears after other material (i.e. something to place {{esoteric}} at the top of the page even though <noinclude>{{esoteric}}</noinclude> might appear at say the end of the code). I'll (try to remember to!) look into it and/or ask someone expert; give me a shout if I haven't got back to you and/or nothing seems to've happened after a few days. Yours, David (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I almost put in some absolute positioning to do that, but I figured we should just fix the template and remove any excuse for that silly template to be inserted. ¦ Reisio 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco

Hi Reisio. I've seen you reverting to the unstripped map. I advised you to read first the lenghty Rfc and the archives before reverting. True that you left a few comments on the talk page but most of your points have already been discussed. We spent enough time on that and one user was even banned (not solely because of that). If you still can't agree i'd suggest you'd file a Rfc and stop edit warring according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen you reverting to the unstripped map."

Clearly; you've reverted my reversions at least twice.

"I advised you to read first the lenghty Rfc and the archives before reverting."

I had read it - as I said, and then you personally acknowledged. I hope this point is clear by now.

"True that you left a few comments on the talk page but most of your points have already been discussed."

Even if that's true, it was without my presence, which naturally makes it less meaningful to me.

"one user was even banned"

That's a nice bit of trivia, but what does that have to do with Morocco or me?

"i'd suggest you'd file a Rfc"

I may.

¦ Reisio 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about everything you've just said except the fact that we do not have to wait for someone for months to decide what to do. Please file an Rfc. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we do not have to wait for someone for months to decide what to do"

Just like I don't necessarily have to honor a decision such as that arrived at by the previous RfC. ¦ Reisio 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason why i suggested you stop reverting and file an RfC. That would be the proper way. Cheers. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested I stop reverting because I have every right to revert? ¦ Reisio 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan

The dictionary lists Uruguay has being pronounced "yur uh gway." So yes, it is now an English word that follows English pronunciations and English grammar (we say Uruguayan and not uruguayo, for example). Are we expected to pronounce France as "Fronce" (French pronunciation)? I mean, after all it is not an English word as you suggest. Also, be mindful of the three-revert rule. Thanks for your understanding. --Chris S. 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Uruguay … is … an English word"

"France … is not an English word"

It seems you get to pick and choose what is and isn't an English word? :p Uruguayan is of course a completely different word. Don't waste my time with your nonsense, please. ¦ Reisio 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood; please note that I said as you suggest. Under your reasoning, France wouldn't be an English word. But in reality both France and Uruguay are. Hope this clarifies things. :-D --Chris S. 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you saying France and Uruguay are English words doesn't clarify things...particularly when they're both not English words. :p ¦ Reisio 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

I've put the EPS file at [8] for you to play around with - it should have all the line work and symbols that are in the PNG version, but it does not have labels. Kmusser 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted from userpage

Do not remove the link I have added to Favicon. When the company created this free plug-in, it was a breakthrough for web designers, unless you can provide another, more qualified link? Adobe Photoshop is afterall, industry standard.

I will be more than happy to provide a professional step by step illustrated and instructional guide, for this page with screen shots on how to create a favicon.ico within the Adobe Photoshop Environment. I have ample College education behind me in this field to qualify as a contributor on the subject of 'favicons'. Edwardtbabinski 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not remove the link I have added."

Buy me some blue nehi cream soda.

What is your problem? Wikipedia is suppose to be monitored by professionals, despite the vandals.

"it was a breakthrough for web designers"

Sure it was. Now they can make whole websites using just Adobe Photoshop alone, and before they had to use Adobe Photoshop _and_ an ICO convertor.

"I have ample College education behind me in this field to qualify as a contributor on the subject of 'favicons'."

This statement makes me think the opposite of what you want me to think.

Why don't you check Westwood College of Technology Dean's List 2004-2005, and see who's listed on it?

¦ Reisio 06:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Posted by Sharon Mooney

Why don't you check Westwood College of Technology Dean's List 2004-2005, and see who's listed on it?"

Got a link? ¦ Reisio 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHARON MOONEY: And may I ask, what business is it of yours? Who has given you the right to stalk and harrass other contributors? Perhaps an Administrator needs to review your conduct.

I meant a link to the dean's list. ¦ Reisio 06:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia User guidelines, just when were you given the right to stalk other contributors for personal information? I would love to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Your behavior is completely unacceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Do you know discussion?

There is something called discussing and it is very important in Wikipedia.
And discussing does not mean writing comment or onel iners, but explaining and developping.
If you're not able to do so then refrain from obsessive reverting. Thanks

wikima 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this discussion; if anyone's ignoring people, it's you. ¦ Reisio 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Jesus

The use of both Christian and Common era dating on the Jesus article was a long-discussed and consensus driven usage. Please do not remove the dating formats. Justin Eiler 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not part of that consensus, so it's meaningless to me; and even if I had been, it'd still be stupid, and therefore meaningless to me. "Common era" dating is Christian dating, and therefore superfluous. ¦ Reisio 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resino, community consensus is an inherent part of the Wiki process. It may be illustrative to read the relevant policy. Thanks. Justin Eiler 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Eilenr, if consensus were never revisited, there would be no progress, and users that didn't participate in the original discussion would ever have a say. That would be stupid, so I dismiss it. ¦ Reisio 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the discussion cannot be reopened--indeed, the policy on community consensus specifically states that consensus can change. But the way to do that is to restart the discussion on the talk page, rather than to unilaterally change what has already been established. Justin Eiler 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not require the input of others to fix something that is blatantly stupid. WP:BB. If you'd like to talk about it, be my guest. ¦ Reisio 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to abide by community consensus when that consensus has been established. Failure to do so can result in being blocked for disruptive editing: continual failure to do so has, in the past, resulted in permanent community bans. Justin Eiler 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said (even though it should be obvious), I am not bound by a year-old decision that I was not part of. WP:CCC. ¦ Reisio 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikipedia policy, unless you can establish that there has been a change of consensus, then yes--you are bound by that consensus. Take it to the talk page. Justin Eiler 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I see on the talk page is people arguing about whether or not it should be (f.e.), 'AD', 'AD/CE', or 'CE', etc. That, to me, appears to be the exact opposite of a consensus. ¦ Reisio 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long-running debate, reisio--and is listed as one of the lamest edit wars on Wikipedia, an assesment I agree with. You may or may not be on the specific page where resolution of this issue was reached.

I'm not saying the "BC/BCE" "AD/CE" compromise is the best solution--I agree that the debate war was stupid, and the current compromise is stupid. But however stupid the results, current usage is the current consensus. Even stupid consensus has to be respected to remain on the right side of Wikipedia policy. Justin Eiler 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree it's stupid, stop reverting my improvements. To thine own self be true. Anyways, I'm getting tired of repeating myself and pointing out the obvious, but I'll throw one for nothing: year-old consensus is nowhere near current. ¦ Reisio 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be stupid, but that is the policy as it stands. Violating that policy has consequences. Now, while I agree that the consensus is not recent, that "year old consensus" is the guiding consensus until and unless that consensus is overturned. You can choose to violate that consensus by arguing that it does not apply--but if you do, you take the risk of facing the consequences of violating that consensus. The choice is yours. Justin Eiler 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell it to someone that's violating that policy. ¦ Reisio 02:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were violating that policy. Otherwise I would not have reverted the edit, nor spent this time discussing it with you. Justin Eiler 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I sure wasn't/am not. Perhaps you should review the policy or this discussion. ¦ Reisio 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When will yopu stop your game with the flag of Western Sahara?

You refuse to discuss. And the only thing you do is to come back from time to time, check, and revert back to your version. This is openly against the siprit of Wikipedia.
Please try to be more cooperative, and understand that the flag belongs the the Sahrawi Republic.
Ok? Thanks - wikima 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no game with the flag of Western Sahara (amusing that you refer to it as such, however :p).
I have discussed it, you refuse to listen. Incorrect information is against the spirit of Wikipedia.
Please try to be more accurate, and understand that the flag was created as a flag for Western Sahara.
Ok? Danke. ¦ Reisio 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Western Sahara flag page

Hey,

I noticed that the page of the Flag of Western Sahara is surprisingly contested. While I cannot say with certainty that my own knowledge of the subject is greater than that of Reisio, I feel that the reverted edit of the page by Reisio omitted certain very important details and was too overbroad (it even removed the foreward at the top regarding "partiality on the territorial issue in question"). Consequently, I reverted the page to its former edit.

This was only done due to the overbroad nature of the previous revert by Reisio, and was not a general criticism of Reisio's editing, and no offense was intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Louse (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rationales

Images uploaded after May 2006 without fair use rationales are speedy deleted under WP:CSD#I6 - I have done so for hundreds of images myself, even if they could have been used here legitimately under fair use, and other administrators will keep doing the same. This is an important criteria which was designed to remedy the slackness and improper use of "fair use" tags around here - which is not just for fun, but to combat (a) infringement of the rights of copyright holders (b) making sure that if there is no need for a fair use image than there won't be one.

These are important especially for pages like YouTube which was, through a mistake of the reviewer, promoted to Good Article status while containing a number of violating images and hence failing the criteria for being a Good Article. Articles listed on WP:GA and WP:FA work as examples of what Wikipedia articles should be aiming to be. So even if it is obvious, fair use is important.--KonstableSock 12:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page template overkill

Thanks for letting me know about the {template:talkheaderlong} thing. I didn't do due diligence and check the usage of the template before I used it.... My VERY bad.... Anyway, thanks for catching it! - NDCompuGeek 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just find {{talkheaderlong}} et al. highly redundant and silly, so naturally I want to see as little of them as possible. :p ¦ Reisio 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

get well card

My adopter, NDCompuGeek is not doing so well. Can you sign his get well soon card? Spread the word please. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Template:Infobox Country padding

Hi Reisio,

Re: this edit, could you point out an article and any other information (resolution/browser/etc.) that would let me see the problem this code circumvents?

First candidate that came to mind was Benin (although I haven't checked beyond a quick look). I'm most often on a PC with 1024 by 768 or 1152 by 864 resolution, using Firefox. Hope that helps! Yours, David Kernow (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dave_Brubeck_Quartet,_The-Time_Out-Take_Five-head.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dave_Brubeck_Quartet,_The-Time_Out-Take_Five-head.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will 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. ShakespeareFan00 09:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg

I have tagged Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler plate is NOT a fair-use rationale. ShakespeareFan00 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to this particular boiler plate and these particular files, it clearly is. ¦ Reisio 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Desmond & Bebop

Hi there. You are definitely right, I don't know why I put that in there. If anything Desmond was the antithesis of bebop, much like Lee Konitz! While everybody else was out mimicing Charlie Parker's every last utterance, Desmond did his own thing and rarely played fast tempo. He took his time. Thanks for removing it. (Mind meal 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the large contributions. Mmmm, Desmond, oh yeah. :p ¦ Reisio 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for formatting the references more easily on the Paul Desmond article, although you have removed some information pertaining to specific page numbers in doing so; not every single usage of one book refers to the same pages. Please be careful when correcting another person's references, as they are specific for a reason. (Mind meal 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I should've updated the template's '55' to '55-57' - I think somewhere during the editing process I'd taken up the assumption that the first ref was the 55-57 one and the second was the 55 one, and that it would cover each. Anyways, fixed. ¦ Reisio 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't mean to sound cross if I did, its just that a lot of work went into all of that. Thanks again. (Mind meal 22:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is just text. :) ¦ Reisio 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:PaulDesmond.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PaulDesmond.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace

on the discussion page for CSS you asked about MySpace pages. http://hyalineskies.com/2006/06/the-web-designers-guide-to-myspace/ is a good place for reference. (it is not my site) 67.49.238.136 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was a reply to an anon. ¦ Reisio 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated

Hello there, I am a fellow member of Wikiproject jazz. I was wondering, if you had a moment to spare, if you would be willing to give your opinion on a matter at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 15 concerning a category I created. The category is [[Category:Jazz musicians of New Orleans]], and it has been proposed that the article be merged with Musicians of New Orleans and American jazz musicians. This is precisely why I created the category, because it seemed to me the birthplace of jazz music and continous modern symbol of jazz certainly deserves a category unto itself. Regardless of your opinion, I would greatly appreciate your input there so as to have a discussion over the matter. Thanks. (Mind meal 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A question from a Rock'n'Roller

Hi! Maybe you know what the font is used on the image you had added: Html-source-code3 Could you answer into 'discussion' on that page? I would appreciate much. Thank you!

New categories for jazz musicians

Hello fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz! I am delivering this message to all members of the project to inform them of a major addition to the evolution of this project. Please see Category:Jazz musicians by genre to familiarize yourselves with the new categories for jazz musicians. Most of the genre categories contain sub-genres in their drop-down menus, so be sure to open them up! I am sending this to everyone to speed up the population of these categories. The sub-genres have been carefully researched to ensure they belong under their corresponding "mother genre"! And please, when in doubt do not categorize something via an assumption. Well, that about covers it! Any help in this regard will be greatly appreciated.(Mind meal 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg

I have tagged Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been over this — beat your head against someone else's wall (or better yet no one else's). ¦ Reisio 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay

This is you final warning. Under no circumstances is the licensing template a sufficient non-free content rationale. If you remove the {{no rationale}} template without supplying a non-free content rationale, it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editting. Jay32183 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really my final warning? Where was the first warning? Warning for what? It's absolutely sufficient... what makes you think it's not? Vandalism? No, I don't think so. ¦ Reisio 01:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary warnings

Please do not issue unnecessary warnings to other users, if you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Momusufan 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm assuming this is directed towards Jay32183. ¦ Reisio 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this warning is directed at you. Momusufan 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about - I don't think I've made any warnings recently. Perhaps you're confused? Jay32183 recently warned me. ¦ Reisio 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know exactly what I am talking about. You removed no rational templates from here [9], here [10], here [11], and here [12] to name a few disruptive edits you made. Momusufan 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some templates, but I don't see any warnings... ¦ Reisio 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned above and you will be warned again:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Do not remove No Rational templates from pictures, you will be blocked if you continue Momusufan 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. Momusufan: Reisio was actually responding to the warning on Jay's talk page, and copied the warning - you'll see that the warning on Jay's page is signed by Jay. :) --ST47Talk 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, she also replies to that warning above on this page. Momusufan 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was warned - not the other way around. I haven't vandalized Wikipedia. I have removed instances of {{no rationale}} that have been placed erroneously, and will continue to do so unless someone gives me a good reason not to. ¦ Reisio 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riana

There's no rationale for those images, hence the templates. Would you like to add rationales instead of just removing the warnings? There's a guide to them here. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are rationales in the templates themselves, hence the removing the warnings. ¦ Reisio 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the bottom of the boilerplate template. "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." You need to take the incentive to write a proper rationale. There are guidelines here. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline is just that: a mere guideline. ¦ Reisio 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline is pointing out how to write a rationale. Writing a proper rationale for nonfree images is policy. Please read up on this, and stop reverting people. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is merely an unfortunate fallacy; see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22#How_required_fair_use_rationales_became_part_of_this_policy. Please read up on this, and stop reverting me. ¦ Reisio 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on your own side in that argument. I strongly suggest that you merely take a few minutes out to add a proper rationale, I do it all the time. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make it any less valid. I will not be adding any redundant text that is not required by policy to any page on Wikipedia. ¦ Reisio 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add a rationale, or stop edit warring over the templates. I removed the original report to WP:AIV because I looked at the wrong instance of edit warring. There's so many, I was confused and looked at your contribs on YouTube. The template is not sufficient, and if you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing. - auburnpilot talk 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have rationales. I don't particularly care why you removed a report at WP:AIV, but if you're interested, you'll find that all of my other contributions make good sense, too. The template is sufficient, and I will continue to operate within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy while I participate in this project. ¦ Reisio 05:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angr

The fair-use tags are not sufficient rationales. Each image or media file must have not only a fair-use tag but also a detailed fair use rationale explaining why each use of the image or file in each article where it is used meets the non-free content policy. Images and files that do not have rationales separate from their tags will be deleted seven days after the uploader has been informed of the problem. Images and files that are re-uploaded after deletion and still don't have rationales will be deleted on sight. Persisting in uploading non-free images and files and refusing to write separate, detailed rationales for them can lead to being blocked. —Angr 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FURG is a guideline, nothing more. I have seen no policy for deleting re-uploaded files on sight. Do please cease deleting media which I have uploaded in conformance with Wikipedia policy. ¦ Reisio 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FURG is a guideline in that it offers suggestions on what to write in the rationale. Nonfree media without rationales are deletable per WP:CSD#I6, which is policy; material that is re-added after being deleted is deletable per WP:CSD#G4. The media you have uploaded has not been in conformance with Wikipedia policy. —Angr 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to Riana, above, that is not a policy and never has been a policy. According to WP:POLICY (emphasis added)...

"A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first."

...and as that item was not included by consensus (even remotely), it cannot be policy.
Until someone can disprove Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22#How_required_fair_use_rationales_became_part_of_this_policy, I will continue operating in conformance with actual policy, and nothing more (fair warning: I sincerely doubt it can be disproved). I do hope you're not indifferent to whether or not a "policy" you're defending is legitimate or not - that would be pathetic.
Furthermore (solely for the sake of argument), if somehow you could disprove the aforementioned, I would still continue to operate as I am now by following WP:IGNORE and WP:CON. ¦ Reisio 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notices from Angr

I don't have a use for these to be on my talk page. TWIMC, I've seen them. ¦ Reisio 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And removed them without resolving the issue they're there for. Please don't do that again, it's considered vandalism. —Angr 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by you, perhaps. I gave edit summaries and have explained myself to you. It's not vandalism, and I will continue to do it, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you'd like to resolve the issue, I suggest you do something more productive and less libelous than reverting my justified edits, deleting media I've been involved with, and calling my legitimate activity vandalism. ¦ Reisio 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 72 hours for continuing to remove "no rationale" tags from nonfree images without adding a rationale, and for re-creating deleted images without addressing the reason for their deletion, after numerous warnings. —Angr 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. I removed 'no rationale' tags because they already had rationales. I re-created deleted images because you deleted them without a good reason (claiming there were no rationales when there were), and because I have found no policy or guideline saying I shouldn't re-upload a deleted image (I even told you this). This is after numerous patient explanations to you, while enduring your unjustified defamations. ¦ Reisio 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

As can be determined by reading my talk page (above) and edit summaries, Angr has blocked me for edits he has considered vandalism despite having been given clear explanations of how they are justified, legitimate edits, including how they fit well within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy.

Decline reason:

Sorry, the block is justified. Please feel free too contribute constuructively when it expires. — GDonato (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nice. So you can't even edit Wikipedia according to its own policies without being blocked. I guess contributing "constuructively" is about conforming to some admins' made-up rules. ¦ Reisio 07:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

If you have a moment to spare, your opinion would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. Thank you. (Mind meal 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]