User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
December 2008
File:Replace this image female.svg
ResolvedHi. I'm sure you will remember this one (and its companion). Despite everything it's still there and still displayed on a large number of articles. I was thinking of trying to tackle the inertia by putting the file up for deletion, but I see it's protected. I wonder if you have any ideas? Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Using AWB to remove it from most/all articles might be helpful. The less it is used, the more likely it will be to be deleted. Same goes for the rest of those ugly placeholders. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- By the way. Though I support the idea of making image uploads/additions easier and found nothing wrong with these images, I do find that there was consensus that these particular images were undesirable. Since the replacement process stalled, I think it is appropriate to mass-remove the images through AWB. Many instances were added by AWB initially as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Noted, but there's a more general consensus now, against the whole "fromowner" placeholder image idea generally, as an eyesore. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that's agreement, no? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay; I must've misread you. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that's agreement, no? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Noted, but there's a more general consensus now, against the whole "fromowner" placeholder image idea generally, as an eyesore. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- By the way. Though I support the idea of making image uploads/additions easier and found nothing wrong with these images, I do find that there was consensus that these particular images were undesirable. Since the replacement process stalled, I think it is appropriate to mass-remove the images through AWB. Many instances were added by AWB initially as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Images at CP
ResolvedHi. I see that you listed File:Stewart tranchell.jpg at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 December 15 and just wanted to let you know that images were removed from CP about six months or so ago. Suspected violations of copyright of images that are claimed under free license are handled at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you'd like me to relocate your concern to PUI on your behalf, please just let me know. I do that on the odd occasion that images are mislisted by new contributors (or DumbBot), but it feels a bit presumptive to do so automatically with somebody as experienced as you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it; thanks. I just forgot about PUI, and the difference. I don't do much copyvio patrolling. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly understand. The wiki is labyrinthine. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Actually, I looked more closely, and Kintak (talk · contribs) has already stated (in response to inquiries about this image and another one credited to Norman Wingrove) that he is in fact Norman Wingrove, so I'll AGF and move on. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly understand. The wiki is labyrinthine. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note
ResolvedYou may want to respond to how you were characterised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Just a note and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Naming standards. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for pointing it out; I wasn't watching those pages. Filed a canvassing report at ANI. Dunno what it is about some of these highly-topical sports types (not a general criticism; I am one, about cue sports) that makes them so disruptive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
ResolvedWhen you start a thread on someone at AN/I, please remember to notify - it is often considered quite rude not to do so. Regards, — neuro(talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Woops, my bad. Was on the phone, then had to run to the grocery store before they closed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you have to be so rude?
ResolvedMr. McCandlish, I really think you need to cheer up. Everytime I run between you, you're always complaining about one thing or another, and I really think you could use some holiday cheer. Okay? So, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. =) Tavix (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Happy holidays to you too (really). And I am having a great Christmas. Please don't confuse being a stickler for process and the rule of "law" (guidelines and policies) for being angry or unhappy. Most cops love their jobs. Comparatively, on some level, I love protecting Wikipedia from folly and from the erosion of its consistency and reader-friendliness. I don't think you're stupid, or intending to harm WP, or a prankster, I think you're just hardheaded, unwilling (surely not unable) to follow the logic of the guidelines in question (simplicity and consistency being the most salient keywords in this case), and self-righteous, to the point of recalcitrance and standoffishness, with regard to your own ideas of how things should work here instead of the evolutionary process of consensus building. Oh well. That doesn't make you a bad person, just a sometimes problematic editor. The first criticism isn't even a strong one, as I am hardheaded myself. The third wouldn't be all that problematic - you're hardly alone - if the second were not at play. Being honest is not being rude. Neither is attracting further critical attention to actions the vast majority of other commentators on which have also criticized, out of constructivism not malice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Tb notice
Resolved| Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at roux's talk page. |
| You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template. |
Cape Verdean American sportspeople
ResolvedHi,
An on-going discussion is taking place regarding sorting people with triple intersections of nationality, ethnicity and occupation. You took part in a discussion regarding German American sportspeople and I thought you might be interested in the current discussion, which can be found here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)