This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hey Fred, Ive nominated File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg at Commons for Quality Image. See here under 5 April section. Just thought I'd let you know! --JovianEye (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Great work fixing up the History of IBM article. There was a major expansion not long ago, and the fellow who contributed all of it did a hell of a job, but I never got around to fixing some of the MoS stuffs that were low-hanging fruit -- thanks for taking care of them! Question: whyfor do you hate double space after period? My mother (an English professor) drilled that into me as a child, and the habit dies hard -- Whenever I edit a paragraph on here I invariably also go back and double-space all the sentences. I wonder if we're in a wheel war? :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
...for that. A good compromise. You should read the article as it was a while ago, before I edited it. Horrific, things like this should never be touted on Wikipedia's front page. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I gave some text for this at GraphLab. Do you have enough info now? Are you willing/able to take this on? cheers, Rd232 talk 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
i just wanted you to know that wasn't me, it also wasn't me who edited that japanese article 168.99.144.58 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that way about the images in Aaron Livesy then go and look at the John Paul McQueen article, not alot needed there Dannyboybaby1234 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented on the Adam Kontras AFD page. Since the AFD page conversation has been leaning to the references and claims being not notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Should there not be a discussion on the pages that are used to reference this issue of notability as well. I found that on the 'Duke Fightmaster show' page there is an interview refenced where in said interview it was stated that Wikipedia was the source of the interviewers assumption that Kontras is the 'first video blogger'. If the Wikipedia standards for notability are not followed on his page, then this link on The Duke Fightmaster show is equally not notable. Further, on the 'video blogging' page, there are references to Kontras being 'The first video blogger' and this is supported by equally dubious references. Should not all of these claims be removed and/or discussed until such time as notability may be established? It still seems, as with the old pattern that Kontras is trying to be famous for trying to be famous. While this has been attempted to some success in the past, by the likes of people like Perez Hilton and the like, They were covering subject matter that was of some importance, or at least interest to a greater calibre of individual. I tried to get this into a discussion forum for removal, and anything I attempt gets reversed, and then I am attacked for vandalism, as this all was turned at one point to being against to being against me, Charles Groves, and not the matter at hand; the page and verified notability of Adam Kontras, which is what I was pressing to begin with, albeit extremely. I do feel very passionate (perhaps as i intoned too passionately) about this and would just like to see the record put in order as to all of this, and have verifiable sourses, and notability issues addressed as per Wikipedia standards. Any help you could provide will be greatly appreciated. Yes I know that I am not impartial, and as such wanted to have such information in the general discussion forum, and have the standards adhered to. 24.125.217.58 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating our policy on living persons and also treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You've had a lot of feedback on this and you're not listening. This is by way of a final warning. We are serious about this: use of Wikipedia to insult people will not be tolerated. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Guy, you're a fucking idiot. The comment for which you blocked me wasn't an insult, it was a play on words and wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just taking the piss out of words used in an article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of WebHamster (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text((unblock|Your reason here)) below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. |
Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Fred you are absolutely a Wikipedia hero, some of your edits are simply genious, and insightful. If some cannot handle your tone, they need a class on saying what you mean, quite frankly I find it refreshing. 24.125.149.247 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, I think it's a bit premature to block Fred indefinitely. His previous incarnation was blocked, not banned, so it's not strictly against the rules to start over with a clean slate. While I agree that some of his comments and edits have been ill-advised, I still think his contributions outweigh the harm done, and I wouldn't categorize this as an abusive sockpuppet. I don't see why the block needs to extend past the original 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a few explanations and comments should be in order. Firstly I will not be asking for an unblock either as Fred or as WH. The following explanation should make it clear why.
The reason WH is blocked is because I deliberately depth-charged the account with behaviour I knew would end in an indefinite block. The reason for this is that I was being stalked by a nutter from Plymouth who was tying to out me, give my family's details and various other psychotic and obsessive behaviour. This was made clear on my talkpage, yet surprisingly the only actions WP admins wanted to take was berate me for my relatively harmless behaviour about Gere's gerbil. I have no respect or confidence in 99% of WP's admins and as such I would, out of principle, not ask any of them for help or support in having a clean start. I did not want an account where anyone could link it to WH. WH had to effectively die (the melodramatic part of me preferred it to be in flames, so sue me). Now that Fred is linked to WH then there is absolutely no reason for me to want that account to be unblocked.
I do take exception to several things though, firstly describing WH as being "banned" on AN/I is incorrect and prejudicial, having the sock-puppet (before now) being described as being "confirmed" is also incorrect and prejudicial. There was no CU, no SPI and absolutely no concrete evidence that Fred was indeed a sock-puppet. There was merely conjecture, supposition and guesswork. There was also a railroad going on. I was blocked for 24hrs, which I didn't have a problem with, then an hour after my last comment, Ryan Postlethwaite waded in with an absolutely unnecessary and unfounded 3 day talk page block thereby denying me any chance of responding to any charges laid against me.
Now the biggie. I'd like anyone to prove or demonstrate that FtO has been an abusive or disruptive sock-puppet. I actually believe I've been a conscientious and valuable contributor. I have spent hours producing illustrations that would have cost £100s or even £1000s in the real world. In the two years and 4000+ edits this account has been running this is my first block, and even then it was purely because a humour-deficient admin didn't understand an admittedly non-PC joke.
At this moment in time I don't really know if I want to come back to WP given the way I've been treated. Incidentally I should point out that I've been editing here since Oct 2003 so I've done my time and in the long run have made my own little impact in making WP a better place. I'm not sure I want to waste another second of my time or effort on it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, the whole "name is blocked vs. person is blocked" argument doesn't hold up. We don't allow someone who's been blocked to create a new account and start right up where they left off. Still, if he comes back under a new name and edits productively, we shouldn't care, and we likely won't ever find out. We should only care if they create a new account and resume being disruptive. FtO appears to have been productive, and except for a poorly thought out joke and an occasionally too-sharp tongue, has been a big help around here. The only reason the link was made to WH was because of early editing indiscretions, not because he repeated WH's trolling (which, by the way, I'm not condoning).
So, there are a couple of ways forward. We could discuss the wisdom of allowing Fred to start a new account under another name without fear of being blocked for being himself. I, for one, think it would be a good idea. Or, since he doesn't appear to care much what we say, we could just accept that he will, if he wants, create a new account, and if he edits productively with it, we'll never know. If he puts up a picture of a woman's crotch on his userpage, he'll be reblocked. If he continues to do what FtO has been doing (minus the unwise jokes in the middle of a BLP nightmare), we all win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately wikilawyering is not the answer to this as that is what led to this situation in the first place. Even if they are unblocked I will neither edit with FtO nor WH. Although my likely option would be to come back as another sock there's not much chance of that happening either. Partly because of a total lack of enthusiasm on my part but mainly due to the fact that I am now outed. If a new editor suddenly starts churning out illustrations, and/or starts saying things as they are instead of how people want them to be then sooner or later I will be outed again. I am who I am. I'm an autistic who doesn't have it in me to be any other way. So in the end I've lost a hobby and you guys have lost an in-demand graphist. All in all quite a successful sequence of events from certain viewpoints. I'll leave it to people's own consciences to figure out if the project is better off or worse off. From my PoV I can always find another hobby and I can now spend the time being paid for my illustrations and image skills. For the people who've tried to support me, I'm incredibly grateful and not a little humbled. And if there is going to be a wiki-piss-up in Manchester I would hope you'd let me know. The FtO email account will be checked from time to time so all you have to do is email me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oyster/Hamster, since you are primarily a media editor how about hopping over to Wikimedia Commons where your skills would be valued and appreciated, and where things are usually a bit more mellow? I happen to be an administrator on that project, so ping me (preferably in advance) if you'd like guidance. If that goes smoothly for a few months we'll talk about getting your editing status straightened out over here. Just please respect the block here while it remains in place: the mixed message some people like to send about that has a way of backfiring, as you've seen. Swim with the current, not against it. The tide turns if you're patient. Best wishes, Durova412 19:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I know you said above that you don't trust administrators - well, I can't do much to alleviate that concern, but I do have an idea if you're willing to put your views about administrators to one side for a moment. Real world stalking is a serious issue, so let's try to do something which will stop you being stalked, but allow you to carry on here. How about we get approval for you to start a new account (I can't see it being too hard - I think the community will be willing to give it a go), on the proviso that you tell 2-3 administrators your new account name so they can monitor and even perhaps mentor you off-wiki. We could obviously come up with 2-3 names of administrators you're happy with an take it from there. Nobody else would have to know apart from those administrators. How does that sound? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lotus f1 racing.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 14:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PrefSymbol-Hokkaido.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Swarovski logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Adrignola talk 17:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Final Cut Pro 7 SS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:British new style passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
((bots|deny=DASHBot))
to your talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article Boris Graffiti has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
((di-replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scrabble United States.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Civility barnstar, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Civility barnstar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Civility barnstar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)