User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Jun

This page 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.

Paltry

I'm fascinated by your use of the word "paltry". My first assumption was that this was a synonym for "minor", then I thought, "Well, maybe, perhaps not. After all, he didn't tick the 'minor edit' box ... ". Please enlighten me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it means, "measly: contemptibly small in amount." Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 11:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of no importance or priority, but continuing my fascination: "So why don't you tick the 'minor edit' box?" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean that the edits were minor. I meant that they were collectively small in amount. But as you say, it's only a minor issue, no pun intended...! Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Having paid more attention to your edits, I have quickly realised that "small" and "minor" are by NO means equivalent. My apologies. Yes, I agree that your paltry edits are NOT minor. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB note

Greetings! Is there a way in AWB to check to make sure you aren't inadvertently changing medieval French rather than English? For example, here you changed "jugement" to "judgement" -- it's not a typo because it's not English. Just curious because I don't know how often this happens project-wide with semi-automated tools. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, there is a way – I'm supposed to carefully check that sort of thing before hitting the 'save' button; my fault entirely! (Although, if you include a {{sic}} tag anywhere in the page, AWB will add an extra warning to the editor that they need to watch out for unusually-spelt words.) Hope this helps? Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Soins, soins :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say that my French, medieval or otherwise, is of such a poor standard that I had to resort to Google Translate to make head or tale of that :P ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you mark you AWB changes as minor? Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

May one ask why? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Because they are minor: some typos, some format fixes, etc. No substantial content changes. It would also help with my watchlist maintenance. Renata (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This wasn't really about my problem, but it did come up in a discussion that I started when people supposedly claimed my unreliable reference was used. [1]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the oil spill to get involved in any detailed discussion; I would merely say that, from what you said at the Village Pump the other day, you seem to have a more than adequate grasp of the policy on reliable sources, and there are several experienced editors involved on the discussion page. I'm sure you'll reach a good conclusion.

Feel free to ask me for any (preferably broader!) help or advice at any time! Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the oil spill. If USA Today "recycles at least some of its URLs", as was stated in that discussion, it becomes a general guideline that all editors should watch out for, since they might inadvertently use a link that turns out to refer to a whole different article, sort of like what happened to me on my oil spill contribution.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made between the link and the article. If a major British newspaper were to go bankrupt and deactivate its website, every page cited to online articles would still be valid (the information would still have been published), the only problem is that the links would be defective.

Plenty of pages are cited to news reports without a web-link, particularly historical news reports of course. It may well be that, if one particular website is known for recycling links, it is better to refer to specific articles rather than specific URLs. Does that help? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what happened in my case is the article may never have appeared in a paper the way I saw it when I used it as a source. Unless someone has the old version saved somewhere and we can be sure it is reliable because it is there, then I suppose what you're saying might work.

All of this should really be in that policy discussion we started earlier.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

< Well, I'd have thought that saying something like the following would be acceptable: USA Today, 30th May 2010, "Huge gold robbery from Ohio dairy," online. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The question is whether the information even exists anywhere. I haven't yet seen any evidence fishermen got sick, but some people working in the area did, and that's in the article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Tagging

You have tagged several articles (some examples, but there are others: Ergin, Erdinç) with the {{orphan}} template that do not qualify as orphans. Please check out the orphan criteria (specifically the exclusion for disambiguation and name pages) and only apply the tag to articles that are truly orphans. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hehe - sorry, couldn't resist. But now that I'm here, I may steal your editnotice format for ani - it may have a reasonable chance of getting people to give the required notifications! :D Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to steal anything you like :) But isn't there already a "please notify everyone" banner? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so many people don't see (or ignore) it and yours is so much more bold and obvious and bold. —DoRD (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Just a note for the future, but the template is supposed to go at the bottom of articles, just like {{Featured article}}. This is because most people don't know what the template does, and it certainly is not easy to determine what it does if you don't already know since it changes an image in the corner of the page rather than inline with the text, so a lot of users remove the template. Gary King (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it at the bottom in future! Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 08:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your efforts! :) Speaking as someone willing to make little edits to hundreds of articles at a clip, but I wonder if it's possible to get a bot to do all that work? Although I completely understand if you want to do it personally, because I do the same thing. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously possible for a bot to do it, but I'm not competent to write one, and the bot-request went unanswered for a good while, so I made a start myself. Do feel free to take some of the weight off my shoulders, though ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - I'll at least hit the ones from the WikiProjects I frequent... that should cover, what 1% of them? :) BOZ (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal images

You seem to have not read all the IFD's, it fails criteria 2 because the magazine may lose money because they are the exclusive publisher of those images. If you read the IFD's, I have gone in to further detail about this.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you were talking about people buying the game which has nothing to do with my argument. There was no consensus, as all the Keep arguments completely missed the point.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of randomly bad unrelated arguments is a consensus? Sounds closer to a vote to me.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, and I just did. So there.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I didn't realise it was a comment. It looked like part of the official text. It was unsigned. I resent your bossy edit summary. Tony (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your reversion of what I now see is Risker's comment, which looked like official text, at the CU/OS announcement section. Hmm, I over-reacted, anyway. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were logged out at the time. Hmm—I always find that it's best to avoid making "uncontroversial" changes to any text written by another person, because unless there's something actually doing any harm, it's generally un-necessary and often inflammatory. Put it down to a misunderstanding :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint

I looked at WP:AN3#User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: ). Edit wars on discussion pages (such as an RfB) are not always treated the same as article edit wars. Oftentimes the closing admin will try to find some diplomatic solution. A block does not appear to be imminently required since the reverting has stopped. Since you're the one who opened this complaint, you're in the best position to suggest it be closed with no further action (should you be feeling magnanimous). Any long-term issues with this editor belong to Arbcom, and AN3 is not a good place to work on that. The continued dialog at AN3 offers you a chance to set the better example. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal issues with Giano, and will not pursue this further, but I cannot, in good faith, withdraw a 3RR complaint against an editor, even if it's him, who broke the 3RR. I'm sorry. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware that just about any block of Giano, no matter how justified, leads to a stupendous dramafest and generally ends up at ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because cuch blocks are unjustified (which is why they are overturned) and the result of such rubbish as this latest one, where an Admin willfully decided to create a completely false and misleading impresion and then when asked, refused to withdraw his comment. Even when other Admins pointed out to him his errors. As usual I have to correct matters myself. I will not tolerate this constant defamation of my character by Admins. Such misleading impressions when deliberatly propogated will always be strenuously refuted. So I suggest Stifle, that you and TreasuryTag take your conscientious and well meaning concerns to those who create these problems and leave me alone. Giacomo 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because cuch [sic] blocks are unjustified. Interesting idea. If blocks for 3RR violations are unjustified, then I wonder why I have any stains on my record at all? ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not the remotest interest in your record. I always consider a pre-occupation with the activites of others to be indicative of too little of value and interest in one's own life. I can never comprehend why so many, such as yourself and Stifle, are so fascinated by mine. Giacomo 11:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I always consider a pre-occupation with the activites of others to be indicative of too little of value and interest in one's own life. Perhaps a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia is not the best place for you, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh, I think I have done quite well here. In fact, quite a lot without needing to acquire titles and tools to bolster my self esteem and status. I do not even know your fields of interest, nor am I interested. To be brutally honest, in mainspace I have ever even come acrosss you. Were it not for your increasingly concerning pre-occupation with me, I doubt I would have ever heard of you, Stifle, Wehwalt and so many others of your type. You all appear to spend ages pouring over diffs of me in the hope of finding something that contravenes your seemingly narrow sense of decorum and delicate sensibilities, while all the time ignoring the really serious mendacious goings on arownd the project. Such is the hatred for me, that when I am called a "cock sucker" Wehwalt, who you clearly so admire, declares it not to be uncivil. You see because of such incidents my interest and respect for such as him and those in agrement with him plummet to new and unfathomable depths. After just that one incident, there should have beencries for his head, and it should have been taken, he proved that his judgement was not to be trusted, yet nothing happens. Yet amnd this is a huge yet, the peanut gallery dare to keep criticising and carping about me for reverting a delliberate misleadling falsehood. Now, I find that very strange and indicative of the people I am dealing with here. My behaviour will change when I no longer have to contend with such poor behaviour from others - others who have set themselves up as superior Admins. I make no claims for my own superiority because I am quite aware and very happy with whom I am. Can you just immagine what the reaction would have been if I had said to Wehwalt (or anyone else) yesterday "You are a cocksucker" can you imagine it? No, I don't think you can - you and this like you don't want to see further than that which you want to see. Now, this is me asking officially (I shall memo this diff) will you kindly leave me alone. Giacomo 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a pity "Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read" the attention span of a gnat? Not to mention uncivil, you don't even understand the emaning of the word. Giacomo 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, I am not here to annoy you, although my very existence probably does that anyway. I was merely providing information to TreasuryTag in a personal message. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

In view of the ongoing situation, please refrain from any further unnecessary interaction with this user, including further nominations for deletion of his articles, files, or pages. Under the circumstances, it would clearly be best for any remaining issues to be addressed by other editors who have not played a role in the ongoing dispute. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to what I hope is a request (!) by email. Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Dr. K. has noted on Giano's talk that he didn't appreciate this comment and I can see why. Prodego has said that kind of comment may be blockworthy. Please take care to avoid incivility, however frustrating an AfD becomes. Fences&Windows 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've been following the discussion with interest, and arguably been subject to more attacks than were warranted by my simple comment. But thanks for letting me know, and I take the point! ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Photography: Making money with free photos

News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dreyer Farms AFD

What on earth?[2] I thought we had an agreement? I don't think this was made clear to you earlier: your interaction with this editor is disruptive. I am happy to prevent disruption with blocks if it comes to it, though I'd very much rather not. AGK 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see that as interaction, I saw that as giving a reasoned opinion in a (seemingly) non-controversial AfD. I don't see how it was disruptive and think it highly unlikely that any block for it would stick, to be blunt! ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 06:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also identified a disruptive !voter even though they were on the same side as myself, and as it turned out, Richard himself agreed with the deletion of the article (or at least asked for it to be deleted). Please highlight where the disruption from the edit you refer to ocurred. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and before you even bother saying that I'm automatically !voting "delete" on every article created by Richard, I would advise you to check that statement carefully. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stay away from anything having to do with RAN for now. This would also mean commenting in XfDs as to content he has uploaded or created. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will undertake to do so since you have politely asked. But I stress that the edit AGK linked above was in no way disruptive, and I resent his accusatory tone of voice. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit, taken alone, wasn't at all disruptive. The wider kerfluffle, among many editors now, has become very disruptive. By recusing altogether, you're helping mightily with the first step towards settling things down. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The wider kerfuffle, which was only started by Giano yesterday, has indeed become disruptive. I obviously didn't want him to start the ANI thread complaining about my behaviour; and now I am to be restricted because of what he did? I'll play along, but this doesn't seem to me to be fair. Nor the fact that he made about eight vile personal attacks yesterday and was not held to account for it. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to "restrict" yourself by NYB and me before Giano ever got tangled up in this. Thanks for doing so now. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My point precisely. I was asked. And suddenly AGK is tossing around the threat of a block for this and not for vile personal attacks such as those Giano was making yesterday. He is clearly irresponsible at best. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes on en.WP, one must stand back and let things bounce about some on their own as they dwindle and settle. Jumping in only makes the mess last longer. Giano is Giano, let it be. Outside of an RfC, I see no further need for you to be making comments about other editors who have gotten caught up in this, please don't, since this will only help you and everyone else. Thanks again for recusing from RAN. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Giano is Giano, let it be." Will people let TreasuryTag be TreasuryTag, though? No, of course not. I wonder why? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I may say so, Gwen, this is completely out of line. Since when could an admin grant another editor immunity from having their content nominated for deletion by neutral users? Especially since Richard is someone whose content most needs scrutinising, unilaterally exempting him from the same standards which apply to everybody else on Wikipedia seems arbitrary and just looks like appeasement. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 08:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a chill pill, nobody has given RAN immunity from anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really? Could you perhaps explain how one should be interpreting this sentence of yours, then: Please stop templating this editor [...] Likewise as to any further pages he has created in userspace: It's ok to talk about it, but give him time to handle it [...] As to articles, I think it's ok to let the AfD discussion run but please don't reopen any which have been closed, even as procedural, for now. [My emphasis] I interpret it as meaning that none of his content is to be nominated for deletion until "things have settled down" – an arbitrary concept, and if Giano stays involved, things will never settle down! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This disruption has begun to harm the project, asking editors to take a break from this is not arbitrary, it's a way to stop the harm and take a first step towards bringing any articles, uploads or other pages which may somehow be lacking into the bounds of policy in a straightforward and fair way without wasting any more volunteer time. Please don't make me comment more on this, you may not like what I have to say and I think you'll find, recusing as you've agreed to do will only help you and any policy driven, good faith content goals you have. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Asking editors to let a particular user create whatever content they want until things "settle down" seems extremely arbitrary to me. If you do not wish to comment further, nobody will "make" you, just as nobody has made you up until this point. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 09:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If RAN goes off on a spree, wantonly creating policy breaching content, no matter how much, it'll be handled soon enough. In the meantime, the website won't crash. The wider disruption is the first worry. Once that settles, the next worries can be dealt with, step by step, in the time needed to do so fairly and within policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder how I am irresponsible by indicating that I am happy to block for disruption? It is critical that you recuse from interaction with Richard. Please don't push the boundaries on this one; I felt that we were making progress after the ANI thread yesterday, and to see things deteriorate so early is quite disappointing. AGK 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It is irresponsible that you would block me for disruption because I made a non-disruptive edit. It is irresponsible that you refrain from blocking other editors for vile personal attacks. Clear? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, TT. You following Richard to an AFD is disruptive. So the first point is wrong. As for the secon, I don't know what you are referring to; if you link me, I can look into it. But in any case the conduct of others does not give you a license to misbehave. AGK 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not "follow Richard to an AfD" – he didn't even comment on the page, so that is a ludicrous assertion. And making a non-controversial, reasoned argument for deletion, while chastising another editor with the same view, is also not disruptive.

As for the second point, if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that I never suggested others' misdemeanours gave me a license to be naughty. I said that your turning a blind eye to Giano's personal attacks makes you irresponsible, and I stand by that claim. You asked for examples: you'll say it's too late now, but here is one, typical of six or seven from last night. However, there's time to put it right, and I would be grateful if you would object on my behalf to his reference to me, of just a few minutes ago, as odious ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there appear to be differing standards being applied. Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is explicitly not harassment. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did, Treasury Tag! The article was created by Richard, as you know fine well. This is yet another of his contributions that you are trying to have deleted. Simply unacceptable. On another note, I would fully concur that Giano's comment was inappropriate, and I have asked him to remove it. AGK 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Re this – thanks. I'm glad you chose to do the right thing; I know that your request to him won't be fulfilled but that's not your fault.
On the other matter, however, I maintain that my !voting in that AfD was not disruptive, in that no actual disruption flowed from it, and I do not forsee my opinion changing. If you wish to continue spouting about it and insisting that it was, then that is your privilege (albeit a privilege limited by my right to delete material from this page) and you may go on doing so until you are blue in the knuckles. But it would be fairly pointless, not least given my voluntary agreement to self-censor in future in cases where content created by Richard is up for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If my request is not honoured then I'll block him. Personal attacks aren't tolerated on here, irrespective of how noble is the cause for which they are made. I note with interest your note at the top of the page that "impersonal, standard templates" are unwelcome here. Where precisely does categorising my attempts to make the project a little less unpleasant as WP:LEGS-worthy fit in with that ethos? Would you suggest that the problem is maybe not with me being persistent but with your continued refusal to refrain from doing silly, disruptive things like your Dreyer Farms AFD comment?
When you started pursuing RAN's enwiki contributions as well as his Commons uploads (to say nothing of asking on another user's talk page how to "deal" with him), you exceeded the parameters of neutral scrutiny of your fellow editors. Your privilege to ignore this fact is moderated by a number of factors, the foremost of which is our site's policy against disruptive editing and my ability to block. You can refrain from interaction with RAN voluntarily, or be blocked; self-censor or be censored. The ball's in your court. AGK 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The AfD comment was not disruptive because no disruption ocurred as a result of it. However, I do welcome your pledge to block Giano if he fails to strike out his attack against me. I note with interest that he seems to have edited since your request, but has not struck it? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Given this can I assume that you will be taking further action? Regards, ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Relating to this edit, the implication that another user is a troll is not civil and should not be made. Please refrain from doing so in future. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for suggesting such a thing, but is it at all possible that you have warned me for precisely the same edit I was warned over just a few threads up? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I do apologize; I had missed it although I tried to check elsewhere. Please feel free to remove or ignore this message. Or both. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please feel free to ignore this civility warning" – how refreshing to hear that from an admin ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know I removed the semi-protection on your talk page which has been in place since November. In general we don't protect talk pages for an extended period of time, as unregistered or new users may wish to post messages. Hope you don't mind. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. You OK? Please will you drop me an email? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI stuff

Just wanted to let ya know, I'm neither a fan or opponent of Giacomo's. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm—OK... ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 15:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[3] Not a good move TT. Giacomo 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You used the non-existent <archive> tag which has no effect... ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Something you might want to keep in mind, TT: It's possible for an action to be both permitted and justifiable, and yet still be a bad idea. Your continuing engagement is not helping matters. Shimeru (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, my continued engagement in what? This dispute's boundaries are expanding rapidly. It started with Richard's images and pages – I've voluntarily recused myself from that. Then it extended into Giano's false claims of harassment – I'm ignoring those. Then it turned into Giano's personal attack against me – I've not commented on that since the block. Then it extended into Giano's general attitude – is this now also off-limits? Where does it end? I'm not prepared to stop editing completely just because the administrators are unable to get a grip on the situation. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to. Just that, before you hit "Save Page," you pause and think for a moment about whether the change you're making is likely to help wind things down, or whether it might instead ratchet things up. Especially when your change is a reversion of a user who's been involving himself in a dispute with you. Shimeru (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If your question is essentially, "Was reverting the attempted closure, by Giano, of criticism of Giano's actions likely to help?" then I would unashamedly answer in the affirmative. If you disagree, I'd welcome your views, however :) ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have been better to let someone uninvolved make that determination, yes. Shimeru (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Though that's a separate issue. The action of reverting that change was either helpful or unhelpful, irrespective of who did it. Whether it would have been more appropriate to wait for someone else to make precisely the same decision a few seconds later, I personally don't see the benefit, but there we go... Do you think that the attempted archiving itself was appropriate? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I think it might have been better if he'd let someone uninvolved make that determination. Which did happen, afterward. Shimeru (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My point precisely: he shouldn't have done it. So I undid it. (The fact that it was non-functional <archive> tags involved only emphasise the point, anyway...) ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See above re: permitted and justifiable. Shimeru (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, when i go to the bathroom, I believe I may be wiping incorrectly, can you please do it for me? Some things are better left alone, you are looking a bit insane, just let this die down. Holy jeebus.--Milowent (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that was rather vulgar... ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit odious. But I hope you get the point.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Nice one. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lalaurie scrn.jpg - Can you look at this image?

Hey TreasuryTag, can I convince you to use your mighty image scrutiny powers for good instead of evil by having a look at File:Lalaurie scrn.jpg? It appears to have an invalid fair use rationale. I'm not really across the procedure for getting an image nominated for deletion so I thought I might pass it to the person I've most recently encountered who seems confident in this area, being you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting—if this guy died in 1842, as the article says, the painting must be in the public domain. But the article says "1997" – which is presumably a mistake. If I were you, I'd tag it as PD. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. There seems to be a claim that the artist was in fact commissioned to paint a portrait in 1997, based on other images of her that might have been available. That painting is most likely still in copyright, unless it can be proven to be a "slavish reproduction" of a public-domain portrait -- which requires the artist to have striven to copy a single source as accurately as possible, without any artistic stylistic flourishes of his own. Which is not what he's claiming. Shimeru (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Newbie wanting help with image tagging

Could you possibly offer some assistance to User talk:Starseeker9? I was happy to help with editing issues, but his/her image questions are well out of my expertise range! Thanks --Dweller (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll drop him a line and refer him to you when he needs help. --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

GA bot tags

See you are behind the GA Bot tagging, I think? I saw the template added to several horse articles, but some of our older GAs don't yet have it: Equine nutrition, Horses in the Middle Ages and Horses in warfare. Not sure what makes the little tag go in, but can you see if they are able to be tagged? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I was just working through a list of GAs, using AutoWikiBrowser. But it's extremely time-consuming, and I've been a bit busy in real life for the last couple of days. I do encourage others to do a little tagging too :) ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if there was a protocol for who adds those tags, wanted to be cautious. But if anyone can do, then I'll do it, and thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AN thread

Don't edit war over it, you're on the edge of 3rr now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR has an exception for reverting blatant vandalism, which deleting a good-faith ANI thread is (especially if it's a proposal for a community ban of yourself!) ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't be see as v. It may be disruption but there is clearly no consensus for the thread to be kept. It's an edit war. Don't revert it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"No consensus for the thread to be kept" – since when did there have to be consensus for a proposal to be open for more than five minutes?! ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war over whether the thread itself is disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather fond that pic

At least looking through all those archive pics wasn't a complete waste of time, maybe? But apart from the info that it was taken in New York I know nothing more about it. I assume it was an advertising gimmick or similar. Misarxist (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil's talk page

He's blocked. Please stop baiting him, take a break. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When WP:CIV and WP:NPA are amended to exempt blocked editors from their remit, let me know. Until then, swearing, vulgarity and calling individuals "idiots" are all prohibited actions. Issuing the appropriate warning is no more baiting than it is ever baiting to issue a warning. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post on his page again. I know there is an irony to this request, given the reason that Ceoil is himself blocked right now, but I make it anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

May I take this request to mean that the language he is using is acceptable? ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then may I take it that, since he has used language which you identify as unacceptable, including a personal attack, his block is going to be extended? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If your ruling is that the language he used is not a blockable offence, I shall consider myself free to use it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that refers to, given that I didn't ask a question. I simply made a statement. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A blocked user's ventings on his own talkpage, while inappropriate, may be given more leeway than comparable comments made elsewhere, so tolerating them in that context doesn't establish a precedent. In any event, you should try to model your wiki-behavior after good examples set by others, not poor ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It means don't do it I guess. This user is currently blocked, normally we allow blocked users to let off a bit of steam on their talk page when blocked, that doesn't mean we encourage it however. I personally don't see anything with you warning them for it, and don't see it as baiting, although I do think you should have just left the talk page rather than continuing with the discussion there, Ceoil's probably not currently in the mode to have a discussion with you about using the word "fuck". Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

TreasuryTag - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Too early...

...for me. Well caught, I should drink more coffee and catch up on yesterday's telly ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla

Hello. I believe you accidently removed the two images from the Gaza flotilla raid article which were re-inserted just before your edit. Could you please put them back? Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, edit-conflicts scare me...! Fixed. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't know.

I'm just calling it as I see it. HalfShadow 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

not vandalism

This wasn't vandalism. Before I remove your rollback bit, do you have anything to say about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. (Aside from the fact that I didn't use rollback, as you can see from the edit-summary.) I made a good-faith error in interpreting "HOLY SHIT YES THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" with the tag repeating characters as vandalism. It wasn't until it was brought to my attention a few moments ago that I realised that the editor was also acting in good faith, albeit slightly childish good faith! ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for the threat, but out of interest, what possible motive could I have had for deleting the comment other than a good-faith error in thinking it vandalism? ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason seems to have been, utter heedlessness by you, which could be enough take TW away from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For one honest mistake? Don't be absurd. People make mistakes all the time and don't get disciplined for it – why should this case be any different? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've abused TW (you know what I'm talking about). You've been warned. Think twice (or thrice) before using automated tools here from now on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You must surely know that an honest mistake is not "abuse" any more than your rollback of what looks like a good-faith but misguided edit is grounds for an ANI thread, and your reversion without explanation of a seemingly valid addition to a different article.

So your warning is not accepted. I will continue to be careful with the use of tools such as Twinkle, just as I always have done, but as you yourself demonstrate, no system is infallible and occasionally, (harmless) mistakes do happen. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove both your rollback bit and TW if I see anything like that again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And you can expect an RfC if I see anything like those diffs again. Or this rollback abuse or this or this or this or this or this – I could go on. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 22:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You both do harm here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Note TT, no conflict intended or desired, but if you're disagreeing with Gwen here, it's probably best to resolve that first rather than revert her elsewhere. (Such actions could be misunderstood.) In addition, I've reverted your change because the article you used as a reference doesn't mention spaghetti as an ingredient. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Your reversion is fair enough, but your inference here and there that I was simply attempting to spite Gwen is nonsense. I saw no reason for Gwen's deletion (the fact that she didn't include an edit-summary didn't help with this, obviously) and thus undid it. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 07:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, Having reviewed your contributions over the last few weeks, I now think I was wrong as to how I tried to handle your templating of User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) and believe that you sometimes edit through a kind of stalking harassment. I won't be the one to act on this, but if you carry on with this kind of editing, you won't be happy with the outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm fascinated. Because you presumably found my revert by looking at my contributions and/or userspace. So what's wrong with me doing the same to you? (Oh, yeah, you're an admin! Forgot...) ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 07:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, that's quite obviously a good faith revert by Treasury, no need to go straight in to threats imo. But you're right that going through your contributions and using your "mistakes" as his defence is not the best course for Treasury to take. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting in my good faith, but I was not using Gwen's contributions as a "defence" – merely as evidence that mistakes do happen (I am being charitable and assuming that they were mistakes). I see Gwen's now decided that I am involved in harassment and bullying, which is a pity, given that it's untrue, but given that she threatened to remove my rollback for a single good-faith error, she doesn't appear to be well-endowed on the 'judgement' side of things anyway. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I hinted above, there is meaningful background to my warning. However, given all this, along with the background, I don't think it would be fitting for me to use the admin bit as to TT. Hopefully, TT will give all this some thought before someone else does bring the bit to bear. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion on 2010s

[4] "No, per Wikipedia:MOS#Dates"

I don't understand. How does what you've linked to dictate that the day and month are meant to be not linked but the year is meant to be linked? -- Smjg (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. It dictates that none of it should be linked (I thought it was phrased quite clearly, myself...) ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 08:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet you left the years linked. Hence my point. Besides, the only thing it says on the matter is "Dates are not normally linked." What does "normally" mean? Moreover, my understanding has been that dates should generally be linked when the content is calendrical in nature, as is the case here. Hence the general linking of days of the year on year pages and vice versa. -- Smjg (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet you left the years linked. Hence my point. Alas, one of the realities about undoing someone else's edit is that only what they changed is undone.

Besides, the only thing it says on the matter is "Dates are not normally linked." What does "normally" mean? I understand that the word means under normal conditions or circumstances; usually; most of the time; in the expected or customary manner; to a usual or customary extent or degree. Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball gazing

Hello. I thought I'd move this discussion to the talk page. The point I was making is that my status as a regular question responder on these desks entitles me to post to them in a slightly more free-and-easy manner than would be granted to one who posts less regularly. You presumably will disagree, but there we go. Best, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Regular users are expected to follow the rules even better than newbies, since they are more familiar with them – this concept is called "setting an example" – and, as I'm sure you can appreciate, if some IP starts a similar thread just below yours, and is told that theirs is invalid because they've not been around as long as you, that's completely inappropriate all round.

I should also note that labelling a thread, "I know I'm not allowed to do this but I will do anyway lulz," however supposedly amusing it is, doesn't make the situation any better. I would urge you not to do that sort of thing again. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated but I think I'll continue to edit in ways which I find appropriate. Best, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find it appropriate to act in ways which flout guidelines left-right-and-centre and set a terrible example to new editors, who are subject to more restrictive rules than you consider yourself to be, then go ahead. At least for now. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

From the team: Changes to the Signpost

News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more

In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more

Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable

WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

I hope you're not offended by my request for you to stay calm. Editors can be easily baited into rash action that makes them look bad if the problem editor is superficially civil while baiting. Verbal chat 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been offline for a couple of hours and haven't yet seen any request to remain calm, but it's unlikely to offend me when I do :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 17:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Escape character

Please, explain this case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you see that you changed essentially a section Escape character#Communication protocols? Please, explain this your edit, a change in the section which was mentioned! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's your poor English (though the bold, shouting text presumably isn't) but your comment appears not devoid of belligerence, antagonism and general combative terminology, and as my talkpage header makes abundantly clear, I decline to engage with such. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that goals of Wikipedia have noting to do with ideas about pleasantness, productivity and positivity which you advertise on this talk page. You got a negative feedback on your apparently harmful action (means that it made Wikipedia worse, ) is not the same character than }, they have different codes). You are notified and warned now, that there are some serious articles in Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that goals of Wikipedia have noting to do with ideas about pleasantness, productivity and positivity. Hmm, well, after reading such drivel as that, it leaves me with no option but to ask you to buzz off, never interact with me again and you would probably profit from learning what Wikipedia is all about. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New Section (of life)

930913(Congratulate) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Shall we forget our past skirmishes? I'm sorry for calling you a vigilante and whatever else I may have called you, let us go on the merit of hereinafter? 930913(Congratulate) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

I'm not sure that this edit was entirely useful. In redirecting Dinara Safina career statistics to Dinara Safina, you lost a lot of information that is not contained in the main article. Since the career statistics are too detailed to merit space on the main page, I don't think it inappropriate to have a secondary page just for the career statistics. Certainly some references were needed on the page, but that's not a reason to throw the whole thing away. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to merge the information into the main article, but I do not feel it is appropriate to have a separate page for career statistics. Wikipedia has pages on hundreds of sports personalities, and it is not standard practice for each of them to have a fork describing their stats... ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may I butt in? (Your talk page was still on my watch list.) I find this redirect frankly bizarre. If you have a problem with a page, the correct thing to do is to nominate it for deletion in accordance with WP:AFD, so that consensus can be reached. (It's a question of whether the stats are notable, which is something that ought to be determined by consensus.) As far as I'm concerned the previous state of affairs, with the main article containing a link to the stats page, is a perfectly happy state of affairs, and one which should have been allowed to continue. But now, of course, the link is still there but just loops back upon itself. Rather silly, I would have thought. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, if you wanted to redirect Dinara Safina career statistics, please take the responsibility to first shift the information on it to Dinara Safina. Yes, it isn't appropriate to have a separate page for career statistics, but please, you also have the responsibility to keep the information intact. It isn't okay to delete a 9000 kilobyte information that many has put a lot of efforts on it just like that. Hope you take this comment positively. Cheers! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your message. Good luck in future edits to Wikipedia.--TM 09:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is a joke.

It really is. Rohedin ^TALK 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know! And I requested protection on the page, nothing either. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if some stupid admin didn't come along and block us for a 3RR violation... :P ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it happened to me just now. Rohedin ^TALK 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for spotting and reverting this edit of mine. I have no idea how I managed to delete half the page while attempting to comment in a discussion but it was entirely inadvertent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not to worry, I'm sure it was :) ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 07:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Pandorica Opens

Fair enough, thanks for being polite about it. Sepmix (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 16

Hi, some of the creators of these redirects are still active. It would be helpful if you would kindly place the template {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~ on their talk pages to alert them to your nominations. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 non-free use rationale dispute

I agree that the non-free use rationale given by Luke_Farrelly-Spain was weak. I believe I've addressed it — please see the talk page for more information. Yonisyuumei (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete RFD Nominations

In your RFD nominations from 16 June, you tagged four redirects that you did not list at WP:RFD. These are:

Article spam
Dead-end articles
Featured topics (different tense than one currently listed)
Good topic (different tense than one currently listed)
Google tests

Can you please complete the second step of the nomination? If you do not list them in a reasonable amount of time, I will assume you no longer wish to have them deleted and will remove the tags. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, that's Twinkle's fault! I'll start again! ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 08:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's a common problem with Twinkle. To the point that I now have boilerplate text for the above notice. :-) Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. My name is Claudi Balaguer (User Capsot of the Catalan Wikipedia and Occitan Wikiccionari), I've just read your profile and since you travelled a lot and are Jewish I think that you know very well what is to be part of a minority and what are a minorized language, culture and religion so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again/תודה, wishing you a great summer, take care! Shalom (great meaning and great salute!) שלום Capsot (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Briggs in the Pandorica Opens

How is it bollocks that Nicholas Briggs is uncredited as the voice of Daleks in this episode? Watch this episode of Doctor Who Confidential at 4.25 onwards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00swfv0/Doctor_Who_Confidential_Series_5_Alien_Abduction/ Sepmix (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It was bollocks because it was unverifiable and not backed up by a reliable source, as Wikipedia requires. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can it not be verified by that footage? Sepmix (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to add it back into the article with an appropriate citation then that would be fine. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the Doctor Who Wikia count? Sepmix (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, self-published sources do not count. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Sepmix (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your talk on my page

Hi, having gone through my images, i understand that some of them may not fall under the requirement of the fair use criteria. However, some of my pics such as that of HAL LCH which is a fighter helicopter in limited production. In the case of this image there is no possibility of a replacement. there are also other pictures of this kind, and i would request you to remove the deletion tag from these images. Thanks Enthusiast10 (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite simply incorrect about this, and I will not be removing any tags. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 07:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, there are a number of photos (I can give you a list of them) which do fall under the fair use requirements. For example, HAL LCH, an attack helicopter is in limited production and thus its images are rare. As a result I have uploaded an image which belongs to Shiv Tharoor, who is a defece analyst. The image of HAL LCH that i have uploaded falls under this category. If I am wrong, please do provide an explanation or else remove the tags on some of these images which have a valid fair use rational.Enthusiast10 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I would also like to imform you that there are many users on wikipedia that upload no free images in their own name whereas they belong to others. Im not guilty of this kind of charge. Enthusiast10 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not be removing any tags. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 17:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Facefugit2.jpg

This file did have a fair use rationale - the uploader had entered all the relevant information but had used the wrong template header so it did not display. I've fixed this and removed your CSD tag. Exxolon (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Please don't fill up that report with dialogue -- it only makes it harder for the admin. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:AN3#User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: ). I don't see any actual rollbacks among those four reverts. All of his Twinkle reverts include edit summaries. What am I missing? If I look at the behavior of the other editors, Trident13 said he was 'reverting vandalism' by Off2riorob. Should Trident13 be sanctioned as well? EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my position is that using an automated tool, be it Twinkle or rollback, to breach 3RR in a content-dispute constitutes "abuse" of that tool. If anyone else breached 3RR using automated tools, I would support their having access to those tools removed. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a policy that asserts that? I know the rules about misusing rollback, but I don't use Twinkle. You can't expect non-policies to be enforced at AN3. And the usual objection to use of rollback in a content dispute is that you are marking your action as a vandalism revert. I don't see anyone here marking their edit as a vandalism revert except possibly Trident13. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that high-speedy reverts using automated tools, when they break 3RR, are obviously disruptive and should not be allowed, WP:TW states, "Problematic users abusing Twinkle may have their access to it revoked by an administrator." ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CAF Photos

Hi TT, I don't mean to be precious, but replying with rubbish was a bit harsh. I was merely trying to make the point that there is little or no possibility of getting a free photo of these individuals that would be suitable. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less what point you were trying to make, because your position is blatantly incompatible with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is little point for further discussion if you "really couldn't care less what point you were trying to make". --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 07:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Please be careful when using edit summaries, especially in article space where non-Wikipedians may view them. I understand your frustrations, but this was over the line. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can actually think of no good-faith reason for an experienced editor to list so-called information which they admit to be "contentious" in an article, backed up by a so-called source which they know says no such thing. It was an absurd and solely disruptive thing to do. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was bad faith, but there is a reason that even our final warning templates maintain at least a basic sense of professionalism. A neutral edit summary could easily have been used. That said, I do understand your frustrations, particularly on Doctor Who articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair do-s, point taken. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am quite offended by your use of profanity towards me, coupled with "What's the matter with you?". Poor form for someone who aspires to be a respected editor.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I refer the honourable and learned Gentleman to my comment of a few moments ago. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
...your "honourable and learned Gentleman". Your tone in your previous comment and indeed your directing me to it are BOTH, I would say, somewhat offensive and your presumption of bad faith stings. I had simply been intending to stimulate discussion as to the inclusion of River Song; I am as familiar with Wikipedia sourcing policies as you are, and signiifcant 'disruption' was not the intention. It was a minor change that I expected would be reverted back and forth (the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle") while we discuss the level of pedantry required for listing in-universe details. I am of the opinion that where the role is clear-cut, the editorial decision in listing is no more severe than an editor's choice as to wording in a plot summary.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's take this in stages. One—you knew the fact was contentious, because you mentioned this in your edit-summary. Two—WP:V and WP:CITE both explicitly require that "contentious" facts are backed up by references. Three—you are an experienced editor and doubtless familiar with these policies. Four—you did include a reference, but it did not refer to the point you were using it to verify; you obviously knew this but used it regardless, and thus behaved in a deliberately, or at least knowingly, deceptive way, as well as the addition of the so-called fact itself.

Where has my logic broken down, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Zythe, he has been warned by an administrator. If he does it again, further action can be taken. However, I don't think he will, so can we maybe agree to discuss the content now and not the contributor? The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I am not trying to debate the editor. I am offended by a persistent defensiveness that does not yield to the need to apologise. The citation was an original citation that simply moved with the lazy transition; I am sorry, too (SEE). Again, I was not being deliberately deceptive and I do not care about the veracity of a "so-called fact" to debate it so vigorously as to become insulting to another editor. Like Wordsmith advises, the only relevant discussion is the character; this can go on the episode page, or anywhere else, and we can cease to speak. While the "BOLD, revert, discuss" strategy has more-or-less succeeded, I regret that I had not been adequately forewarned of the "experience fuming rage from other editors" stage. I will accept an apology when you cool down.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been fourteen hours, I am now cool. I stand by what all of what I said and make no apology. How's that? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 07:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Vile and pitiable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you're setting a good example and embodying the principles you clearly expect others to exemplify. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello TT, you appear to be edit warring on Donna Noble. You're an established editor and you know why edit warring is wrong, so i'll forgo the usual templated warning and just ask you not to do it. As you know, it may result in protection and blocks. Thank you, The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|1=I did not breach the 3RR, explicitly holding back from a fourth revert, in my efforts to remove the ungrammatical and unencyclopedic material added in by an editor known for incredibly poor style and grossly disruptive editing and personal attacks who explicitly refused to discuss the matter. I recognise, of course, that one can be blocked for edit-warring even without four reverts, but since I was acting in the best of faith and made explicit that I would revert no more, I can't see that this block is preventative? (It's now three hours old and I am definitively cool as a cucumber!)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User has agreed to unblock conditions. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: The Wordsmith^Communicate

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Note: I have left the blocking adminstrator a note on his talk page asking that he unblock you both and protect the page instead. Note specifically that I agree with the validity of the block; I simply think there is a better solution than blocking both the parties involved in the edit war. --Deskana (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for your efforts... I think ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wordsmith. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twelve hours for edit-warring on Amy Pond (in the most pathetic edit war I've ever seen). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for unblock

(this will also be posted on the other's talk page) I am willing to unblock both accounts on the following conditions:

TreasuryTag and KnowIG do not edit the Amy Pond article for a period of 48 hours, to start immediately after the unblocks.
TreasuryTag and KnowIG agree not to interact with each other for a period of 48 hours, to start immediately after the unblocks.

Any violations of these two terms will result in immediate reblocking for the remainder of the restriction or for 24 hours, whichever is longer.

–MuZemike 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to agree to these terms, with the provisio (of course) that I am able to report any violation of these terms by the other party. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How about I promise you that I'll watch both of you, and if either of you violate the terms then I'll block the respective party myself immidiately? This accomplishes the same thing, but allows you to agree to MuZemike's terms immidiately and completely. --Deskana (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As you wish :) ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

This really isn't getting us anywhere. How about rather than continuing to butt heads about the appropriateness of images, we go to Wikiproject:Doctor Who talk and try and thrash out with the entire project a suitable image for each Doctor Who article that currently lacks one BEFORE it's added to the article. What do you think? Exxolon (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm anticipating that each discussion would have to reach a consensus that the image fully satisfied the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy BEFORE the image was added - if consensus could not be reached on that point then the image would not be added and an alternative sought. If consensus indicates that NO image satisfies the policy then no image would be added until consensus changed. Exxolon (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going offline now. Please consider my response to your objection to my suggestion. Reply on my talk, I will respond tomorrow. Exxolon (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for delay - my internet access is sporadic at this time - I have replied on both FFD discussions with a proposal that I hope will lead to a productive result. Please visit and reply to either/both posts at your convenience. Exxolon (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news

In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)