This is an archive of my talk page. Do NOT add anymore comments to this archive. If you want to talk to me, please add comments to my current talk page. Editing this archive will be considered vandalism and will be reverted and unanswered.
So you have decided on deleting the gallery of pics of airliner orders on the Boeing 787 order page? And now that you have decided a gallery is not needed, the pictures have become orphaned? So if you had not deleted the gallery, the pictures would not have been orphaned? And these pics are released by Boeing media relations at www.boeing.com for all to use. You know that right?--Bangabalunga17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images violate fair use criteria 3a and 8. 8 specifically disallows galleries of fair use images. The image content was not discussed in the text, and did not contribute a significant amount to the article. They are promotional images that Boeing allows private, non-commercial use of (see [1]), yes, but they aren't under a free license, and they're certainly not under the GFDL. Please remove the false copyright tags on the images. --Rory09614:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rory, here's some advice from out of the blue, from a guy who just cruised through the RfA page for the first time in a while:
You're not helping E, if that's what you're trying to do. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't even !voted to support him. Why are you directing so much snark at the opposers if you don't even have a dog in the fight? Whatever reason compels you to do it, I recommend that you stop. You're not breaking any rules per se, but sarcasm tends not to make the opposition carefully consider your viewpoint, but to motivate them. ATraintalk05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to "help" E. I haven't voted to support him because I haven't even reviewed the candidate yet, I replied to the opposes because their reasons were clearly invalid. I don't have any particular interest in getting E the mop, but, as someone who likes Wikipedia, I try to encourage people to use more common sense in their votes on RfA. Do I really need to personally like someone to want his RfA not to be opposed for ridiculous reasons? --Rory09605:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no desire to help R, just the encyclopedia, and I see no reason why I should stop commenting on RfAs with my reasoning- everyone else does it, including you; why shouldn't I be allowed to? --Rory09603:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop adding your opinion against every oppose in R's RfA. All editors have a right to one !vote - and sometimes that is for, sometimes against the applicant. Actions such as yours appear to be designed to harass and belittle those who do not agree with your opinion (counting at 7 additional comments and arguments as at this time) and they are part of the reason that wikipedia only gets a small number of people !voting on issues such as RfA. Again please stop - you do not assist the process at all by this type of badgering.--VStalk05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Last I checked, RfA was still, technically, a discussion, and discussion regarding the opinions of those who commented were allowed. If, in fact, RfA is now a straight vote with no discussion allowed, please point me to the relevant page explaining this. --Rory09605:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not violating either the spirit or the letter of any policy. My comments are solely for the purpose of starting discussion to improve the encyclopedia. Please don't call me a troll. --Rory09606:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are missing the point again Rory - if your comments were a discussion they would look and read like that - and I certainly would have no problem. Truth is some/many of your comments come across as sarcastic, belittling and argumentative, and you pick and adjust the components you disagree with to provide the colour to your argument. Anyway I can only lead you to water - what you do when you get there is up to you - but you should pay attention also to Stephen's stronger suggestion above.--VStalk05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcastic? Yes, certainly. Argumentative? I would hope so- the entire point of my comments is to provoke discussion. Belittling? I only intend to mock the arguments, and if any editor has felt personally belittled, I apologize. You're correct in that I don't respond to everything people say, because I don't strongly disagree with much of what people say, but I do only attack the arguments, not the users. --Rory09606:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source of the conflict, Rory. You are attacking arguments, indeed. While you have every right to question other users and are encouraged to engage others in conversation, you are not entitled to be aggressive in the baiting manner which you've taken up at RfA. That kind of behavior (which you yourself admit is intentionally provocative) borders on incivility, which is disruptive and grounds for blocking. Discussion is fine. Intentionally trying to get other editors' backs up is not. Stephen miscounted above, because I am an administrator myself. So you have a total of three administrators asking you to tone down your behavior. If you feel unfairly targeted, by all means make a post at the AN. ATraintalk19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking an argument does not automatically mean I'm being incivil, it simply means I'm replying to it in disagreement. Yes, I'm trying to provoke discussion. Are you saying that's a bad thing? I'm not going to post at AN, because I refuse to believe that you or any admin would actually block me for starting discussion on RfA. --Rory09620:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --But|seriously|folks09:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am against the overuse of fair use images in articles, I do have a problem with it being summarily removed, as it may mess up the article layout. This offends editors that might not be aware of the policies.
I know it will be almost an impossible task to contact all of the editors before removing them, but some articles do have regular contributors, that will be willing to correct the situations if they are asked to do so.
I suggest that in the case of such removal being reverted (or preferably before the first removal), you try to contact said users (or do so on the applicable article's talk page) and explain the situation, and maybe giving them some time to correct the situation on their own.
Furthermore, if possible, leave a few images, where they will then be of fair use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Otlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Bolton Swings Sinatra (album), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, jokingly, posted that I had stolen this account (as I was attempting to convince the person who notified you of this that I was new, and he found out this account is old). I'd now very much like to see how far some policy wonks are willing to go on two lines of IRC logs (that, I might add, can't be copied outside of IRC, per policy). Of course, I could just be making this up and I'm really an evil account thief. --Rory09603:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing we can do is look at user contributions, and I dont see anything wrong. (beyond that, it takes checkuser) BUT it is not all that great an idea to play around with things like this. There is a long enough list of real problems at CSD and so on.DGG (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my edit summary notation has changed almost entirely, and I could easily just be pretending to be the last user of this account. Either way, bringing IRC issues on-wiki, especially when there's no harm being done to the encyclopaedia should be strongly discouraged, which I suppose was the entire point of this little exercise. You should be focusing on CSD (where there's a backlog at the moment, cough cough), not wasting your time with IRC affairs. --Rory09603:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And false claims of compromised accounts done just to see what would happen are also strongly discouraged, no matter where you choose to post them. Off-wiki attempts at Wikipedia disruption are by arb com ruling (and Jimbo's statement) under their jurisdiction. Yes, I fell for your little practical joke., and I do feel suitably stupid about it. DGG (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly discouraged to the point you could be blocked for it - your actions apparently caused a bit of a panic, as I was asked to look into it despite being on vacation now. And while public logging of IRC conversations isn't permitted, limited copies can be kept in the event blocks need to be made based on them, and some channels (the unblock channel, for instance) can be publicly copied. Without checkuser, it is impossible to tell if you're joking or actually someone else taking things over, so please don't game the system just for fun. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - Sorry if I seem like I'm overreacting, but people have been blocked for less, and these situations cause undue amounts of nasty dramaz which everybody hates. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you really think, you should seriously consider whether you should keep your admin privileges. Blocks are only for preventative purposes, and even if somebody blew a sarcastic comment I made on IRC out of proportion, it was clear the entire time that I would not cause harm on the encyclopedia. A block would be entirely punitive and against policy. --Rory09623:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Otlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
